Background: 3 years of Public Speaking Competition in various organizations at the National Level. 1 year High School Debate (Policy). 3 years volunteer judging experience.

Overall Philosophy: With each round, I like to adjust my judging style and expectations based on the experience level of each team. Generally speaking, I prefer teams that have excellent communication/presentation skills. So think of our round as a public debate. You're a politician and I am the average American citizen. You may think of me as a mix between tabula rasa and a speaker/communication skills judge in this regard. All of your points need to make sense. I am not a 100% poker faced judge. Just like any crowd, read my expression and body language so you can better adjust if something in your speech falls flat.

Decorum: No tolerance for rude behavior. I don't mind aggressiveness, but exercise some restraint. Don't interrupt. Don't belittle. You may point out an unprepared debater, but don't harp on it the whole round and do not disrespect the debater. You may interrupt during a CX's natural pause if that's your strategy. Tact and respect above all.

Spead: Do not spread. A well thought out and concise argument is far more effective than a 14 minute speech you've powered through in 5 minutes. The main idea is to communicate a well thought out argument for the assigned topic. You spread = I stop flowing.

Advanced Arguments: I'm open to all (Topicality, Disadvantage arguments, Kritiks, etc.) just let me know that you are running them and make sure they are a.) well thought out b.) benefit your case/round c.) logically sound. Understand though, if you run one and do not do a good job, that will definitely affect your score.

Tag Team Debate/ Open Cross: I am all for an open CX. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules. Be smart with your strategy. I am still listening to the round.

How to Win My Ballot: Be respectful and get to the point! Have strong and effective communication. Be logically sound. Don't drop your points. If your opponent mentions it, it's on my flow and you've waited to the last speech to address it, it's a good chance they will win that point. Don't read to me; speak to me. Teach me something new. Don't be afraid to concede a point if it makes much more sense. Don't leave anything to chance and don't assume I know what you're doing. Make sure your arguments are thorough, well put together, effectively addresses each raised point/issue, and then tell me why/how you've done that or why I should vote for you. If I agree; you win! Bonus points if you can make me laugh or make the round entertaining. Will that get you a win? Not necessarily. But will definitely help your Speaker Points tremendously!

Have fun! Remember, I'm just your average American citizen.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me at any time.

Hi! I competed for four years in PF at Newton South and am a first year out.

Short version

I’ll vote on the flow but slower debates are appreciated.

Warrants are crucial.

Please do comparative weighing.

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense/turns on any arguments that will be extended.

I’d prefer not to judge prog.

Tech > truth, but in the words of Nilesh Chander, “the best teams win on both fronts”.

Long version

How I judge:

- I will only evaluate what is extended in the second half. This means that if you want me to vote on an argument, you should extend both warrants and impacts. Missing warrants to me means that your argument isn’t true. Also new implications/responses late in round won’t be evaluated.

- Please, please frontline all defense on what you’re going for in second rebuttal. Also please collapse and don't extend your entire case.

- Doing comparative weighing will help me differentiate between arguments and also increase the chance that you’re happy with my decision.

- I won’t kick an argument for being too tech but I’ll accept weaker responses the more unrealistic it is.

- I default to and would prefer to use a util framework.

Speed:

- I can handle most speeds, but would prefer rounds to be slower overall as I’ll be less likely to miss things. When in doubt, send a speech doc.

Evidence:

- Paraphrasing is fine but direct quotes are better.

- I’ll only read cards at the end of the round if teams request it.

- If you can't find a card that's called, I'll treat it as an analytic.

- I will boost your speaks for disclosing on the PF NDCA wiki but there is absolutely no penalty for not disclosing.

Other stuff you might want to know:

- I don't flow cross, so if you get an important concession that you want me to evaluate you should bring it up in a later speech.

- I do time speeches. If you go overtime, I won't stop you but I will also stop flowing.

- I generally give high speaks, and I will also disclose if the tournament allows and both teams are okay with it.

- I don’t think I will ever presume, but if I did I would presume for the team that lost the coin flip.

--------------------------------------------------

Prog:

I think progressive arguments make the activity more confusing and am generally opposed to them.

On theory specifically: I dealt with a lot of theory when I was competing. I really don’t want to deal with theory as a judge unless there’s an actual violation that occurs in the round like a piece of evidence being seriously misconstrued, and even then I would prefer an IVI instead of a shell that kicks the substance completely. I’ll raise your speaks if you disclose but I don’t want to hear disclosure theory.

I feel uncomfortable in my ability to evaluate Ks and would highly prefer it if they are not read. Tricks etc are also too much for me.

I will not evaluate any kind of progressive argumentation in a novice round.

-----------------------------------------------

If you’re confused about anything or have additional questions, please ask me before the round!

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

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 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.

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 :)

Standard FLAY Judge; I competed in Public Forum and World Schools Debate for Boston Latin for 6 years.

TLDR: Warrant + Weigh = Win

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag-not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop for judges : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, if you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

**My partner and I made it our mission to run environmental arguments on every topic in our senior year. That being said, I'd look favorably upon climate change related impacts and links, if ran well.

**Regarding progressive args, I'm not very well versed in them so run them at your own risk. The likelihood of me voting for K's, t shells and theory shells etc. are low simply because I'm not familiar with them. If there's actual abuse in the round, just explain it in paragraph form or put it in a way that I would be able to easily follow.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask or reach me at cinly.mo@columbia.edu

Good luck, have fun, and learn things!

*I don't like non-topical/progressive argumentation at all, but I will do my best to evaluate it*

I did PF for four years at Newton South and am now a sophomore at Princeton.

Overall:

The most important thing is to be nice and respectful to each other!!

I will be flowing, but I appreciate judging flay debates over super tech debates.

Lay [---------*--] Flow

Tech [---*--------] Truth (if you make a claim I think is untrue but warrant it super well, I'll buy it)

General:

If you don't warrant a response in the speech where you first bring it up, I won't evaluate it even if you warrant it later in the round.

Make sure you implicate arguments the way you want to me understand them. If you don't make a connection for me, I won't make it for you.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine, and I will only call for evidence if someone tells me to do so.

I also think that you can find evidence for a lot of things that aren't true, so when you read evidence you must warrant it.

Second Rebuttal:

Frontline all offense (link+impact turns, dis-ads, offensive overviews). You don't need to respond to defense, but it can be very strategic to do so in rebuttal.

Summary/Final Focus:

Collapse in summary and convince me why that argument is the most important one. Final focus should mirror summary, with the only exception being that first final focus can have defense from rebuttal that wasn't extended in first summary.

Speaks:

I'll boost your speaks if you make jokes, sing part of any of your speeches, or refer to a pro contention as "protention."

If you're rude in cross, personally attack your opponents, or say anything offensive, I'll give you low speaks.

don't be an ass lol

I am a lay judge. I will take notes.

I am open to a wide variety of arguments and expect each argument to be well supported by facts.

Besides the quality of the argument, I will generally look for:

(1) Signposts

(2) Clarity

(3) Respectful speaking

Signposts: Describe the argument first before getting into the details. Let me know why the argument matters.

Clarity: Make sure to pronounce words; as long you do so, speak at a pace that you are comfortable with. I may not be familiar with the nuances of your debate topic or debate, so refrain from using jargon. If there is an easy way to say something, opt for that. Try not to use fillers (“um”, “like”).

Respectful speaking: Be polite. You can be firm or tough. But be polite.

About me: I am an attorney and a negotiator, focused on the technology and biotechnology industries. I was a business strategy consultant before law school. I participated in Model United Nations. I have judged law student negotiation competitions and moot courts.

Hi! I'm a senior at Newton South and a third-year PF debater. My most distinguished accomplishment is placing last out of (I think) 8 teams at a local Big Questions Debate event.

Overall:

The most important thing is to be nice and respectful to each other. If you're mean, I'll be sad.

I appreciate smart debating. For example, don't read 10 responses to a contention that's 100 words. Also, if you're word efficient but speak slowly, I value that more than speaking really quickly but having a lot of filler words.

Example of smart debating: implicating a dropped response on one contention as terminal defense on another contention later in the round. Do things like that!

IMPLICATE RESPONSES AND WEIGH TURNS

Lay [----------*-] Flow

Tech [---*--------] Truth

General:

My least favorite thing is unwarranted claims. Do not abandon logic. Even if you extend a warrant in rebuttal in summary, it must be in final focus too. Don't make assertions without warranting them.

The flow is still important to me, so make sure you don't drop anything important.

Make sure you implicate arguments the way you want to me understand them. If you don't make a connection for me, I won't make it for you.

Make sure you have a narrative that you extend through summary and final focus (second rebuttal is a good place to explain your narrative too).

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine, and I will only call for evidence if someone tells me to.

**I also think that you can find evidence for a lot of things that aren't true, so when you read evidence you must warrant it**.

Speed:

I'm good with speed, but that doesn't mean you should speak quickly. I value the quality of argument over the quantity of them, so if you're speaking quickly to get a lot down on the flow, it's better to speak slower and go for fewer but more fleshed out argument.

Weighing:

Please do it. At the end of the round, you probably won't be winning every single argument, so weighing makes my job easier and will probably make you happier with my decision.

Second Rebuttal:

Frontline all offense (link+impact turns, dis-ads, offensive overviews). You don't need to respond to defense, but it can be very strategic to do so in rebuttal.

Summary/Final Focus:

Collapse in summary and convince me why that argument is the most important one. Final focus should mirror summary, with the only exception being that first final focus can have defense from rebuttal that wasn't extended in first summary.

Cross:

Ask questions and don't steamroll over each other. I will listen to cross, and if you're all speaking over each other I can't understand.

Speaks:

If you're rude in cross, personally attack your opponents, or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything else offensive, I'll give you low speaks.

Theory:

I think that running theory in PF is extremely exclusive. Not everyone has the resources to learn about these arguments and how to respond to them.

If you want to run it, you must extend it throughout all speeches or else I will think that you are just running the theory to win rounds. You also must define the terms you use, like "role of the ballot" or "permutation." This is not only helpful to your opponents, who may not know what these terms mean, but it's also helpful for me to understand what you're saying.

she/her

i am a freshman studying computer science and economics at NYU. i debated at the high school level for 3 years at Acton Boxborough and this is my second season judging debate. i am currently debating on NYU's parlimentary debate team (very lax, though).

a couple of things:

- please preflow before round

- go at a slow/normal speed

-idrc about cross unless you bring it up in speech. however, please be respectful during crosss.

- warranted response + card>warranted response> card dump. your reasoning is more important than this random article you found that agrees with you.

- no new responses starting second summary for me plz (this includes frontlines disads etc)

- signpost, weigh, collapse on the same thing during summary and ff

- most importantly, please do not be discriminatory/rude or that is auto L and lowest speaks possible. please read a trigger warning if you are running sensitive topics for case/any argument. if you read something sensitive wo the warning and the opponents point this out, you will lose the round. if you're not sure if something is triggering ask me and your opponents.

- i don't know how theory, kritiks, any progressive debate works. if your opponents agree that you can run progressive arguments and you make sure that I understand what you are doing (a risk that you can take), then you can run them. however, do not have high expectations that i understand anything. if i don't understand what you are doing, i probably will let the other team win.

- have fun! enjoy debate, make new friends, and learn something new, whether you win or lose. i know debate can be rly competitive and tough but as long as you are learning and becoming a better debater, you win in the long run :))

im excited to judge your round! good luck and see you soon. if you have any questions, concerns, etc. you want me to know before or after the round, please email me at gloriazhu66@gmail.com (if you are asking me for flows after round please let me know what team you are on and what round i judged you).

- bonus tbd