I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

Hi, I'm Alisha!! (she/her)

Email me before the round: abhattsmith23@concordcarlisle.org for any questions or concerns on my paradigm or anything I can do to make the round more comfortable/safe.

Overall (everyone must do this)

• Be nice to your partner and opponents. (no racism homophobia etc)

• You will be dropped if I see this happening.

• Ask your opponents before running progressive arguments (theory, k’s, etc) (unless it's trigger/content warnings then go for it)

• If you think there should be a content warning, there should be one with an anonymous opt-out form for everybody in the round.

If you are a novice:

• You rock!

• Debate can seem daunting at first. Just remember we are all here to learn from one another so please don’t be stressed and try to have some fun :)))

• If at any point during the round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, ask me.

• Weighing the easiest way you can win my ballot. Make sure, however, you are doing this comparatively.

• I don’t vote off of your crossfires. That doesn’t mean I’m not paying attention. If you have something to say about a crossfire, make sure you are bringing it up in a later speech so it goes on my flow.

• Collapse! I (and many other judges) do not evaluate rounds by counting how many things you bring up about the round. It simply is not a good use of your time. Pick your strongest arguments and extend the warrant and impact.

I debated for Boston Latin for 6 years, qualifying to the NSDAs, NCFLs, and TOCs a couple times. Now, I'm a current student at Harvard.

Paradigm: My paradigm is pretty simple. I'm a standard tech judge, and will evaluate 99.5% of all arguments you read which includes theory, Ks, and tricks. I place heavy emphasis on warranting, clash-breaking, and issue recognition i.e. being able to understand the underlying clash in the round or between arguments. Fundamentally, you need to win the strongest link into the strongest impact.

Some things to avoid: Avoid being mean or overly aggressive. I'll probably be somewhat biased against a team that runs tricks, and vote on educational/fairness arguments against them. Don't spread if you can't do it clearly.

Final thing to note: I very often will vote for the team that wins the single most important perspective, world view, or argument in the round. Most judges don't say it, but typically they can explain their decision in one sentence. That one sentence and line of reasoning is critical to how I vote. Debaters get too caught up in the line by line or small arguments like indicts to see the bigger picture - If you win that larger view of the round, you will almost certainly win my ballot.

I started a couple initiatives or led them through out my career as well. Check them out, all of them contain helpful resources for Public Forum debaters.

Outreach Debate: https://www.outreachdebate.com/

Libertas Debate: https://www.libertasdebate.com/

Public Forum Discord:https://discord.gg/CNVj2KG9f8

"Adapt to me or get off my lawn."

- Luis Sandoval (Meadows Debate)

Update for NPDI

It's been a long time since I debated/judged/coached on the circuit. I can't follow spreading like I used to. Please slow down a tad (especially if I look visibly confused) and explain stuff thoroughly.

Prefs cheat sheet:

1: fast, technical debate. good K debate (not pomo).

2: policy/LARP. good T debate.

3: phil. theory. lay/trad debate.

4: K (pomo).

S: tricks.

Background:

• Andrea, she/they. La Reina HS & Yale. Earth & Planetary Science major.
• Include me on the email chain andrea.nicole.chow@gmail.com
• I have debated and coached for 10 years now - 7 of which were circuit LD & policy in SoCal and 3 years of lay parli in New Haven. Also dabbled in speech & slam poetry - so I have a soft spot for performance... take from that what you will...
• I was coached by Leo Kim. I understand debate very similarly to him, but not exactly the same. Anything not answered in my paradigm can be answered in his.
• I was a K debater and am most familiar with set col & fem. That being said, this is not an invitation to pull out your team's spicy Baudrillard backfile from 2016 and go stupid. I think K's need to have some alt or offense or something or at least have an outstanding defense of why they don't need one. I would rather judge a good LARP round than a bad anything else.

Miscellaneous notes:

• Ways to improve your speaks: emailing me a picture of your flow after the round (and it's a good flow) (tell me you are planning I do this so I can look at your flows before submitting my ballot), telling me to read a specific piece of evidence (and it's good evidence), making puns or jokes (and they're funny)
• NON-CIRCUIT DEBATERS: I don't care what the CA debate handbook says. If your best/only argument against a counterplan is "the rulebook says that's not allowed," then maybe you should be reading a different aff.
• If your opponent asks you not to spread, you better not spread!!!
• If your opponent reads tricks, you can respond by saying "silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" and that will be a sufficient response for me.
• Include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of identity-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide. For example, reading set col pain narratives cause you're thirsty for a ballot is kind of hard to listen to. When you read these positions, ask yourself - how are you showing up for these communities outside of the round? Are you kind to other marginalized debaters? Do you donate to mutual aid funds with your resources? What books and sources do you read to learn more about the arguments, even when it doesn't benefit your case? The consequence of ignoring this is an L-25. If you are confused, ask before the round.
• If you are a circuit/varsity debater, and you are debating a traditional/novice debater, and you do some ridiculous behavior, act rude and condescending, spread them out, read 6 off, use tons of jargon, push them to disclose, etc., you will also receive an L-25. I have no qualms about judge intervention in this respect. I'm so sick of watching these types of rounds. You probably don't deserve to win anyway if you have to revert to these strategies; it's so embarrassing. Practice kindness.
• Please let me know if I can make any accommodations to make the round safer or more accessible for you.
• I flow primarily from your mouth and then from the speech doc, so slow down on tags + analytics.
• Explain everything to me like I am very, very stupid... because I am

FOR LD:

I'm a good judge for you if:

• You want a judge who will attempt to understand the debate to the best of their ability and try to adjudicate fairly.
• You read a critical affirmative.
• You mostly go for critical arguments.
• Your positions are creative and entertaining.
• You like fast, technical debate.
• You display a ton of personality in your debates.
• You are great at the topicality debate.
• You read well-researched disadvantage or counterplan strategies.
• You have a superior defense of impact turns.

I'm a decent judge for you if:

• You read an affirmative.
• You negate the affirmative.
• You default to generic negative strategies.
• You have a decent defense of your affirmative.

I'm not a great judge for you if:

• You assume I am following along with the speech doc as you go.
• You assume that I know anything about any mumbo-jumbo critique, so you don't have to explain it thoroughly.
• You're bad at debating the critique.
• You don't warrant your arguments.
• You expect high speaker points in every debate unless you radically change my understanding of the debate.
• You don't demonstrate a mastery of the arguments you've read.
• You like satire.
• You go for tricks.
• You think of human suffering as a tool to help you win the ballot.

I'm an AWFUL judge for you if:

• You unapologetically defend sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc., arguments.
• You think death is good.
• You ask your opponent to delete things from the speech doc. The highest speaker points you will receive are 28. I've only ever seen this problem in LD.
• Your best strategy against a team is theory. Distinct from topicality. Also have only encountered this in LD.
• You like racing through arguments as fast as humanely possible.
• You speak unclearly.
• Your strategy relies on making your opponents uncomfortable.
• You're disrespectful to your opponents.
• Your strategy relies on having someone who enjoys LD.

People who were heavily influential in shaping my understanding of debate (and therefore probably have very similar paradigms to me) in order from most to least:

Leo Kim

Ben Crossan

Kate Totz

Alanna Cronk

Katie Raphaelson

Andrew Overing

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

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

A few items to share with you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a lay judge with engineering background. I have following expectations.

1. Please RESPECT.

2. Please speak clearly and slow since I am a lay judge.

3. Logic and clear explanations will win.

Lastly, be PROUD of yourself :D

*btw if you email eela.cui@gmail.com a funny meme I will add 0.5 speaker points :)

I competed in public forum for Acton-Boxborough.

Rebuttal

I have little to no tolerance for new frontlines in second summary (if you’re second speaking team and didn’t frontline at all in rebuttal)

Theory

I don’t know how to debate theory and honestly don’t understand it. Don’t run paraphrase/disclosure/other theory in front of me; I won’t vote off of it. That being said, if your opponent is being sexist/racist/ableist/discriminatory in any way, call them out on it; clearly warrant and explain what they are doing and why it is harmful (if you are the one being offensive you’re getting auto dropped and lowest speaks I can give). In general though, no theory.

• Don’t hesitate to ask if you have questions or if there is any way I can make the round more accessible for you.

• email is ashleydawn@college.harvard.edu for evidence chains

Shortcut: Identity/Materialism Ks > T > Larp > Ethical frameworks or High theory Ks> Theory > Dense tricks

Please time/record yourselves and each other

Email: maximilian.dittgen@gmail.com

Hunter '21

Hi, I'm Max! I did four years of LD in high school, reaching a few bid rounds and attending NCFLs twice.

It's been a bit since I've last heard spreading so please start at 70%ish and work your way up from there.

I will evaluate any argument in the round and try to refrain from inserting my opinions as long as arguments a) have a warrant that I can explain in my decision and b) are not clearly offensive. I will not understand your position (especially philosophical/high theory ones) as well as you do. If you are reading a non-T aff or high theory K, explain what the aff/alt/method does. The online format makes it pretty hard to catch blippy arguments. If an argument is important, let me know: have explicit weighing, spend time on the argument, or even tell me to highlight it on excel.

I mainly read Idpol Ks in high school (setcol and abolition), but when reading a K to me make sure link, alt, and impact are all very clearly explained in the 2N. I don't necessarily know what your K means--I like brief (~15-45 seconds) overviews (plural!) on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense. I like unorthodox alts if they make sense in the context of the K and will reward them with higher speaks if they're good.

--

Update after Ridge: I'm open to hearing disclosure theory, but my threshold for voting for it will increase as the violation becomes less egregious. If you forego substance debate for a disclosure theory shell, either explain your voters extremely well, or make sure there's a legitimate abuse story.

--

Update for Big Lex and Columbia: Although I've never competed in PF, I have been teaching it to 5-10th graders for two years--please don't feel like you need to adapt for me and I'll try to evaluate your arguments as fairly as possible! However, I don't have any topic knowledge, so please be a bit patient with topic-specific knowledge and acronyms.

--

Update after Big Lex: I won't vote on explicit counterplans in PF--however, I believe that if the neg side proves an alternative to legalizing drugs that is happening or has a possibility of happening in the status quo solves case and avoids disadvantages, I'll vote on it

I am a senior at the Waring school and have been debating since the beginning of my freshman year.

I vote based on responsiveness to the opponents' argument and the ability to support claims through strong evidence or reasoning. Please remember to carry through your reasoning as well as your impacts to the later speeches in the round. I will not consider new evidence that is brought up in grand cross or final focus.

I believe that a good debate has a balance of truth and tech. Debate is about a balance of the two. A strong debater can effectively use rhetoric, evidence, and strategy in a round.

Please be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire. Try not to interrupt, unless someone has been speaking for a significant amount of time without asking/answering a question.

I will deduct points for any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or social class.

I will give you +.5 speaker points if you are on the pro and you call your arguments "protentions" instead of contentions.

hello everyone i'm Maddi and i debate for Concord Carlisle High School

Things i'm looking for:

- i want a respectful round

- looking for you continue your points all the way through

- weighing is important to me and the people who make their impact the clearest will win

- i won't really judge on final focus too much unless the round is close, in which case it will be important

- i look for evidence that is mostly factually based not an opinion

also, please be enthusiastic... i want you guys to at least act like you like debate <o/

if you have any questions please email me and i'll get back to you: maddi0209@gmail.com

Misc.

if you can name my favorite One Piece character +.3 speaker points :D

Hello!

I did PF for four years at Bronx, so I am good with flow stuff but fine either way. I'm good with speed and jargon, but don't use either to be obnoxious to your opponents.

Please please please weigh everything in the round, or if you drop something, tell me why so I don't have to do that myself!

Puns are always appreciated.

This was super general, so if you have any more specific questions feel free to ask before round, I didn't really know what stylistic things to specify here but am happy to answer more specific questions.

Hi! My name is Cam (He/They) and I'm the captain of the Waring Debate Team from Beverly, MA. I'm a senior and have been debating since my freshman year.

I come into the round with a fair assumption that you are following NSDA code of conduct rules. Essentially, be respectful and attentive. If you are offensive in any way in regards to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, etc., I'll give you a loss, 24s, report you to tabroom and contact your coach.

Just because I'm also a debater doesn't mean you should disregard the premise of public forum: that every round should be comprehensible to everyone. Public forum is meant to be accessible, and when it's filled with jargon and spreading, the round is thus made inaccessible and the premise is defeated.

Specifics

-Spreading is a no-go in my book. PF was formed as a direct response to it, and to how arguments and research got lost in rheotoric and speed. In PF we don't spread, we make our rounds accessible. If you have any questions about speed, please talk to me.

-I will not vote for one team just because they have more ink on the flow. I'm not tech>truth or truth>tech, debate is about a balance of them both. Debate is evidence and rhetoric, not one or the other. I'm tabula-rasa, as each round should be.

-Use your knowledge of the topic. Trust yourself, trust your partner. You know your stuff, now let me know that you know. As my coach says, use the Kansas Rule of Three: "tell me what you're going to tell me, tell me and tell me that you told me." In short, use off-time roadmaps and signpost. Please sign-post, tell me where you're going. If I don't know this, I won't know where to go on my flow and the ink will get messy.

-In terms of taglines...don't expect me to remember who Jones18 is in your summary, when you brought the card up once in your case. Explain your link-chain, don't simply name drop evidence. Otherwise, I'll be focusing on trying to find out who Jones18 is, and not on your arguments. You want me to pay attention to your arguments. That's why we're here, isn't it?

-Cross fires are for your own sake. I will not flow them. If your opponent makes a concession in cross, bring it up in your speeches if you want me to consider it on my flow. If I look like I'm ignorning you during cross, I'm not, I'm tracking things on my flow and trying to figure out elements that I'm confused about.

-Please me to evidence exchanges cam.gimbrere@gmail.com

If you have any questions, please ask me! If there is anything that I can to to make this round more accessible for you, please let me know. Post-round, if you have any questions, or believe that I made the wrong choice, I am open to conversation. PLEASE talk to me!

And for real, have fun. I know this is super stressful and we often don't want to wake up at 5am on a Saturday to get a van to a tournament to spend all day as anxious wrecks drinking too much coffee, to get home late, but we can make the best of it :)

No Debate.

Firstly, If both teams agree, give me a paradigm that you like better and I'll judge based on it (this includes not flowing/being a lay judge lol I am g-d tier mom judge and won't intervene)

Here is how you should read my paradigm: at the top of each section is the most important stuff. If you only have a few mins read that. reading below those parts will provide a more in-depth take into my judging philosophy.

Update for Online Tourneys

I rlly can't follow like REAL spreading but I can take 99% of PF speed. I'll clear u if i need it. also ask questions if u have them and I'll answer as honestly as possible!

Most important part of my paradigm:

If you make or buy me a chicken parm or mac and cheese, I will get you prep on a topic or coach you for a round or something. I rlly like chicken parm and mac and cheese....

My name is Sam and I debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA. Was a meh first speaker and got carried imo. Now I'm a member of the Barkley Forum at Emory University in Atlanta.

TLDR: Normal circuit tech judge who likes warrants and logic and needs you to collapse on args

Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before round or my RFD after round. (thx @Kate Selig for this idea: I'd rather you postround me than tell everyone I'm a bad judge )

Also, ask questions before the round starts! I might have thoughts on the topic you'll wanna hear. tbh also might not cuz I'm kinda dumb

Speed:

u can go fast, but don't like SPREAD SPREAD plz plz. i will try to keep up and clear u if need be.

I can flow it but only if you articulate well enough. 300 wpm and up I need a speech doc. The faster you go the more work I have to do and I'm lazy. I will always flow ur speed, but chances are if you feel the need to go too fast, then your time allocation was bad/you made bad strategic decisions. Also like fr just cuz u can go fast doesn't mean u should. Speed kills

Theory/Progressive args:

read whatever you want. i ran a cap k during medicare for all and loved it lol. I'd rather you not read random theory args just bc you want to win. if you're doing that, ASK YOUR OPPONENTS/DISCLOSE BEFORE ROUND. its rlly sh1tty if you don't. i can't emphasize it enough, reading theory on novices or people that don't understand what's going on = :(

don't run theory if u wanna get high speaks (or win bc i VERY much prefer substance)tbh --> i judged a team who read disclosure against an international team that clearly didn't understand how to debate it and it angered me to my soul. that's just really not cool. don't be mean. :(

but like if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it just like not happily

the below is borrowed from Jason Luo's paradigm

d-d-d-d-disclosure theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very (like actually completely 50-50) tab ras about disclosure, i do not think it is good or bad, just that it exists.

p-p-p-p-paraphrase theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very slightly biased (55-45) for paraphrasing good but its not hard to win paraphrasing bad.

all other theory/k stuff: if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it.

Cross:

it doesn't matter

Its useless to me. If you want to use an answer your opponent gives in cross, then say it in a speech. Don't be rude. Hug your opponent for a 30.

If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to stand up and yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and your partner each get 30's. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get 26's for interrupting cross.

Framework:

I default util.

Explain it well and how I'm supposed to evaluate offense under it. the more complex, the more explaining u need. Framework debates aren't my absolute favorite but hey, you do you!!

Evidence disputes:

read ev if u want. don't miscut but i won't drop u for it.

I value all evidence equally unless you weigh it, which you should. You should ALWAYS tell me why I need to value your evidence more. also, evidence doesn't matter nearly as much as logical warranting. also like in general i won't call for cards unless ur like "sam call for this card" in speech. I think that calling for ev in any other circumstance is intervening.

Speaker Points:

strategy + speak pretty to get good speaks

You will get better speaks if: You make jokes. You give good speeches and make good strategic decisions. You aren't a dick. You make me laugh. I am extremely generous and tend to give out 29's routinely. I will give you a 30 if you are exceptional. *Send me a speech doc for an extra .3 speaks (sgoldstone514@gmail.com). Also extra .3 speaks for collapsing (if u do it correctly and it makes me happy) in 2nd rebutal. I guess I'm receptive to 30s theory but like it shouldn't be hard to get a 29.5 from me. I good example of really good strategy is what Jason Luo did in first final focus of TOC finals. also i will give speaks relative to the round and the level of competitors in the debate.

Here is an itemized list of my favorite speakers in no particular order:

- Rahul Shah (his voice is soothing and he's so damn cute)

- Claudia Leduc (gives summary without looking at the flow at all, hella impressive)

- Atharva Weling (sounds so persuasive)

Rebuttal:

collapse in 2nd rebuttal. at least frontline offense and stuff. anything not frontlined is conceded.

Summary + FF:

Collapse, extend full link chain, weigh

I like roadmaps. I don't need defense in first summary. Don't extend too much in Summary, thats my biggest pet peeve FOR JESUS' (or any g-d u may or may not believe in, but if u wanna win the round do this lol) SAKE: COLLAPSE. When extending the argument you're going for, please extend the uniqueness, link, and impact in both speeches. An incomplete/ghost extension would a) make me sad and b) possibly lose you the round.

Please impact out turns in summary (although its better if this is done in rebuttal) if you plan on going for them. It is 100% okay to just go for a dropped turn. Also, u can go either line by line or give voters/do what you usually do. Don't extend through ink lol. Defense isn't rlly sticky it (unless u make an arg that it is in speech) but I'm less inclined to vote for a team that doesn't frontline at all even if their opponents don't extend defense.

Weighing:

Please weigh, and give me good analysis. It makes my job 1000x easier.

Earlier you weigh, the better. Weighing is very helpful in rebuttal, but NEEDED for me to vote in Summary and FF. With the new 3 min summaries, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to weigh in summary. No new weighing in 2nd FF, new weighing in 1st FF is unfavorable but if it's the only weighing in the round and they don't respond to it then like eh. If both teams win their weighing and cases and there is no meta weighing then I will vote for the team whose weighing was introduced earlier in the round (prereq/link ins weighing doesn't apply here bc if one case is a prereq to another then u vote for the prereq/link in). Does this favor the 1st speaking team? No, you can weigh (and do other fun things) in 2nd constructive. Unrelated but remember to weigh turns over contentions. If nobody weighs then i honestly won't know what to do. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args. jUsT mAk3 mY lyfE eAs1eR!!!

How I make my decision:

Weighing debate first.

I vote on the weighed args first but if nobody weighs then i be big sad, but I'll vote on cleanest/clearest path to the ballot. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args and the paths are both clear/clean. If there is no offense in the round then I flip a coin to decide who picks up cuz choosing any other way is interventionist, but feel free to make warranted arguments abt defaulting to one side or speaking order. I will always disclose after the round and give an RFD. also PS lmfao u need to win the link into the impact that u weighed.

Other:

I will reward you for taking risks like collapsing on only a turn. Please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. I hate dumb analogies, chances are, even if you think you're funny, you're not. Don’t call me judge, that’s weird. If a tournament is side-locked, if both teams agree to flip a coin the normal way (winner of the toss decides speaking order or side (their choice), the other team decides the other), I'm fine with that. I think side-locking makes no sense and is very harmful to pf as an activity when certain topics skew neg.

for every link into tourism you read, +.5 speaks lol.

i will never ever ever make any comments abt what you're wearing or how you speak. if a judge ever does, that's pretty messedup. i don't care if u show up in designer clothes or sweats. i enjoyed debating in sweats, it's comfy.

in outs, if i'm on a panel that's 2 other lays, u can tell me to judge it like a lay round and i will. (this means voting for the team that better establishes a narrative and is more convincing lol)

Do crazy sh1t fr fr:

g0 cRaaazeEEy!!

tbh unpopular opinion but evidence is dumb, debate should be logical. obvi like use evidence if u want but warrants/analytics are perfecto. I genuinely think that debate would be better if it was just logical warranting, evidence is bad. (obviously evidence matters but: warrant + authors name vs. just warrant? meh p equal unless u give me good reasoning to prefer the evidence. unless the evidence is like a fact like "x has increased y 200%" is obviously better than a reason why x doesn't increase y)

If at any point you believe that you have won the round with no way for the opponents to win, you can call a TKO, if you are correct it will be an auto W with 30s, but if you are incorrect it is a loss with 25s.

Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!) instant 30 if u do this cuz lol.

Above all, just have fun! Debate can get stressful so just try to breathe, chill and relax in round.

I WILL DISCLOSE AFTER EVERY ROUND NO EXCEPTIONS— HOLD ME TO THIS

A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH

plz remind me of how many speaks you should win based all the crazy stuff in here lol i'll forget what i put here

I did PF for 3 years at Newton South and am currently a freshman in college.

General:

I will be flowing the round, but I prefer a flay debate over a super tech debate. If you're spreading, I probably won't be able to understand you. I will vote on any argument as long as it is warranted and has evidence extended throughout the round.

Please don't be rude to your opponents, I will tank speaks and it'll be more difficult to win my ballot.

Progressive:

I don't have much experience with progressive arguments, so run at your own risk.I think paraphrasing and non-disclosure are fine, just don't misconstrue evidence.

Frontlining:

Frontlines should be made for any offense you want to go for later in the round. Otherwise, I will consider the argument dropped.

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a policy analysis major at Indiana University.

General Stuff:

• Tech > truth, mostly.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I am not that familiar with progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.) so I might have a bit more trouble understanding them. If there is an abuse in round, you can just call it out in speech; it doesn't have to be formatted as a shell.

• I default to the first speaking team.

• A lot of times (I did it too) debaters will see that their judge is a past debater and just spread random cards without warrants. Understand that I still know the topic a lot less than you do. You still have to read warrants and explicate them for me to understand what your argument is.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate in my opinion.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and my ballot might get crazy.

Things I Do Not Like:

• Disads/offensive overviews are yucky, especially in second rebuttal. It gives insecure energy, like "I don't know how to respond to an argument so you're just reading another piece of offense to crowd it out on the flow". My threshold for responses to these are low.

• I do not like new responses in final focus that are disguised as “JuSt WeiGhiNg.” I will notice and it will not be on my flow.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will always grant more credence to the args of a team that does so.

Speaks:

I am pretty lenient with speaks but there are a few things that you should keep in mind.

• I was pretty aggressive in crossfire so I am fine with that as well but just be conscious of your opponents. This means letting them respond to your questions, ask their own questions, and overall just have an equal opportunity to talk.

• Talking over someone never won a debate and I can assure you that winning perceptually doesn't really win my ballot.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue (honestly quit debate, too <3)

This paradigm doesn't cover everything. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Have fun!

she/her

Hi! I'm currently a third-year PF debater for Newton South.

As a judge, I'm a pretty standard flay- make sure to extend a clear warrant, frontline, and weigh! I will be flowing so you can speak faster. In round, please be nice to each other and don't say anything racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. If you have to provide a trigger warning then maybe try to not run it or at least have a backup case.

I won't be flowing cross but I will be listening. If you make a good argument in cross, it needs to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it.

The most important thing to do to win my ballot is to weigh weigh weigh!

Have fun!

I am a senoir at Waring school and have been debating since the beginning of my freshman year. I vote based on responsiveness to the opponents' argument and the ability to support claims through strong evidence or reasoning, though a strong and understandable presentation also reflects well. New evidence brought up in grand cross and final focus speeches won't be considered. Additionally, when it comes to cross, what is said during cross with only affect my decision if points are brought into speeches. Also, I'll make sure to include plenty of comments relating both to speaking and your actual points in on the ballot

Also some preferences:

1. I'm ok with fast speeches, as long as both I and your opponents can understand what is being said. Annunciate well when you're speaking and you'll be fine.

2. Don't yell during crossfire

3. Overall be respectful to your opponents. I am ok with you interrupting your opponent during crossfire if they have been speaking for a while and not responding directly/directly asking a question; just do this in a way that is assertive but not rude.

Hey Debaters!

I am a flow judge. Here’s what I want to see in round

• Matching summaries and FF

• I allow extensions from rebuttal to FF

• I want to see defending case in 2nd rebuttal

• I can flow fast speaking, but I will NOT flow spreading or excessively quick speech.

• I want to hear constructive, calm questions asked in cross. No shouting!

• No theory, for pete's sake. (And for my sake too)

I will vote off of everything, but I like voting off of case more than turns, but whatever offense there is, I will take into account.

don't be an ass lol

She/her

Feel free to email me stephsaloumi@gmail.com

I am a current PF debater at Newton South.

For Middle Schoolers: Assume that I know nothing about this resolution. I love a good narrative and some nice weighing to go along with that. Bonus points if you mention potato in any speech. Remember to have fun!

Everyone else....

March 2023 Update: I have almost no topic knowledge so treat me as a lay judge in terms of topic content.

I can flow, but I'm kinda bad at it. If your case is anywhere near 850 words, I will just ask for your tags. That being said, speed is okay, but no spreading. I don't like theory, K's, etc., but it is not an auto drop. For evidence, the link and something to command f is fine.

Cross+Grand: I’ll listen. If someone says something important, please say it in a speech. Don’t take up all of cross. I want to hear everyone. Please note, how you treat your opponent in cross will affect your speaks.

Rebuttal: Off-time roadmaps are fine. Please signpost and warrant your responses. Overviews are great, but not necessary. I am bad at flowing card names, so if you are referring to a card the entire time (“They ignore our Bob 20 of Vox card”), I will get very lost. LOGIC IS ALWAYS GOOD.

Make your responses responsive! I would much rather you warrant out a few good responses. Frontlining is good. If you have time to weigh, go ahead, but you don’t have to.

Summary: In my opinion, summary is the make or break of the round. But, we all have our good and bad rounds, so no pressure. DO NOT EXTEND YOUR ENTIRE CASE! Please collapse to a link/subpoint/contention. Please frontline, but if you are collapsing, you don’t have to frontline anything you are dropping (except turns), but if you have time you probably should. New evidence in first sum is okay, not in second sum, but you can cross ap something that has already been said.

Weighing is always nice. In first sum, you don’t HAVE to weigh, but it would be appreciated. I also love a good narrative.

FF: Relatively standard. Mirror the summary. Please be on the same page as your partner when it comes to extending. New weighing is allowed (but not with new numbers, evidence, etc.). No new responses. Just wrap up the round, please. KEEP IT SIMPLE!

General notes:

• Probability > anything, it doesn’t matter how big the number or impact, if it won’t happen!

• Typically logic > evidence

• I will call evidence if there is a debate over it, or if you ask me to

• Squirrely points are fine, but it better make sense

• No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.

• Trigger warnings are needed if you are running something sensitive (always have an alt case)

• If you do run a sensitive case (lgbtq+, racism, etc.), please be respectful

• Speaks start at 27.5 (they can go up and down from there, I will tell you more during the round if you want)

• I don’t understand the economy very well (GDP, debt, interest rates, stock market, global whatever) so go slow on econ args

• Generally lives > economy, developing world > U.S (unless their link into the developing world is sus)

• I'm very lenient on time

• I will loosely keep track of prep time, but I'm bad at math, so don't expect me to know how much time you have left

• If you flow with a pencil, I will silently judge you

• I do disclose unless I am told not to.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask in the round.

Be nice and have fun.

paradigm

she/her

I'm a current PF debater at Newton South.

You can talk fast but don't spread or else I won't flow what you say and don't start off a speech really quickly. If you run theory or spread I'll drop you. Don't say anything racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. If you have to provide a trigger warning then maybe try to not run it or at least have a backup case.

If you go too long over time for speeches I'm either going to not flow what you say or just not listen.

Cross: I pay attention to crosses but don't flow them. Be nice. If something important is brought up say it again in a speech or else I won't remember it.

Rebuttal: A logic rebuttal or logic responses are totally fine. If your frontlines are going to be "this doesn't make sense, they don't warrant this, no card or evidence" most times I'm not going to flow it because if it really doesn't make sense I won't count it in general. I like overviews and I think they are very helpful in the round. Don't just read blocks from your block file, and try to implicate every block. Don't card dump.

Summary: Please collapse on one argument although I'm a flow judge, still create a narrative and story for your side. If you say something in final focus that was unextended during summary, I will not flow it. The same goes for new responses after first summary.

Final focus: You can bring up a new weighing mechanism but again, no new responses

Off-time road maps are fine, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't signpost.

I might look at some cards at the end of the round if there is a debate about specific evidence or how important it is.

For me probability and urgency weighing are the most important. You don't need to weigh off of scope, it just takes away from your time, and I know when a number is bigger than another. At the end of the day, I would like for it to be pretty easy for me to vote for someone and not do much work so please weigh, and if possible try to meta weigh.

If you make a one direction reference I will give you 0.5 - 1.5 extra speaker points depending on how good it is.

Also just because one team is second speaking, doesn't mean they have the last words. I disclose unless I'm told otherwise. You can be sarcastic, or make funny jokes, it makes the debate more fun for everyone.

Good luck!!

I’m from Lincoln-Sudbury High School. I competed all four years of high school and have been judging for two years, exclusively in pf. I’m a college student at UMass Amherst, just having returned from a four month study abroad trip to Thailand (aka I have a tattoo).

I’m fine with fast speaking speeds but if you’re spreading I definitely won’t catch everything and will spend more time piecing together your argument than evaluating its impact.

I want to see both summary and final focus be similar in length (each around 2 minutes). In summary, please summarize the round. In FF, please provide me with a focus I should have at the end of the round. In addition, each speech should cover similar points of argumentation. I can’t vote off contention 1 in FF if it’s not in summary.

I try my best to flow but sometimes my pen runs out of ink. If this is the case, I will stop flowing for the rest of the round to make it fair for both teams. I call it equality inc.

No plans, kritiks or theories.

I go for argumentation over style.

2nd speaking team doesn’t have to cover its own case in rebuttal. I’ll flow it if you do but it’s not required.

No new arguments in grand cross and final focus.

As a member of the prestigious Lincoln-Sudbury SW team, I feel it’s my responsibility to give back to the community that allowed me to reach new heights. God Bless America, God Bless the NSDA, and God Bless the TOC. Good luck.