This is my first year as a debate coach and judge. I have a degree in Philosophy, and am experienced at considering the merits of arguments outside of the NSDA format.

I would consider myself a traditional judge; enunciation and clearly articulating fewer points is more effective than spreading to cover more ground. More importantly, if I can't follow your argument because you are speaking so quickly, I cannot and will not consider those points in weighing the round. Per NSDA guidelines, style and delivery is less important than substance, but if your substance is not conveyed because of your style, than it becomes relevant by default.

To that point, I prefer a rebuttal that is organized similarly to the opponent's argument rather than jumping around. Your argument is more effective if it is methodical. I don't believe that an argument is won by quantity over quality, so if you tell me that your opponent has dropped a point, tell me why that point matters. If it isn't as significant as the points your opponent successfully argues, than it doesn't matter that they dropped it.

Finally, I am not impressed by slippery-slope arguments that build a long chain of improbable events to conclude that your opponent's case leads inevitably to cataclysmic results. Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and just because, for example, nuclear war is possible does not mean it is guaranteed or even plausible. You must articulate good evidence that it is likely.

Style:

I understand how important speaks are in avoiding the 4-2 screw, and I will try to be generous towards debaters’ totals.

I can take speed, but I will shout clear if words begin to slur together or if a debater is hyperventilating. At that point, listening becomes too taxing and counterproductive to hosting a debate. Jokes, idioms, rhetorical flourishes are highly appreciated.

Offline/Off the clock roadmaps are not encouraged unless you are about to attempt something very different in terms of speech structure.

Evidence:

Crossfire is the best time to call for cards and I will consider such requests after the round. More often than not, card calls occur when there is a conflict of evidence, and thus locking horns about it is counterproductive and is best left for right after the round. I will allow debaters to remind me of which cards they wanted me to call after the round.

I reserve the right to call any piece of evidence. Additionally, I would like to see the entire pdf/html file for any card called. Do not forget, you can use the internet to access SAVED links (refer to page 26 of the NSDA manual, Piloted Guidelines, Part A, section 2). Evidence that cannot be produced is going to be weighed as much as the personal word of the debater. Statistics should be cited with some context and their methodology explained.

Argumentation:

Frameworks in PF typically contain little novel and are little more than a roadmap. Instead, try to give me what you want me to weigh in the round in advance (utilitarian vs. deontological ethics, weigh lives in present vs future, etc.). Setting the tone for the round is beneficial for all parties involved.

Point out tight/abusive points in the next available speech. Putting off such claims will make them seem like a cop-out.

I judge by what is on my flow, and I will do my best to write down every topical argument made in the round. I understand that time in PF is very limited, so it is not critical to extend points over and over again. If debaters bring up a point in the constructive or rebuttal and it goes unchallenged, it will be considered. Weighing and doing the argument calculus is FAR more important than bringing up the same tired points for four rounds.

Summary and Final Focus should tie together, with partners making cohesive, linked arguments on how to weigh the round.

In terms of the kinds of arguments given, I am open to everything and anything as long as it is not offensive and within the spirit of courteous debate. Creativity is welcome!

I did Public Forum in high school and now I am a junior at Penn.

I only weigh offense in the final focus if it was brought up in the summary speech. Explain your warrants and extend some defense. Impact analysis, weighing through framework, and turns are ways to win my ballot.

First of all, I am a new parent judge. Secondly, after I learned the basic of PF debate process, I like it when debaters, spread or not, can articulate their points clearly and persuasively with well organized thoughts. Coherent logic is key to me as well as concrete facts as evidence. My impression of debate is always highlighted in the crossex, so I would like to see your ability to find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal but not the verbal attack to your opponents themselves :).

Be polite and respectful to your components and you will be treated reciprocally. Last but not least, have fun!

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

I am a professor of sociology and demography. The debate topic of urbanization is in my area of expertise.

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format, and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I appreciate when competitors pay attention to time limits and focus on substantiated argumentation as opposed to semantics and more minor points of disagreement, and dislike when competitors speak over each other or repeatedly emphasize unsubstantiated points made throughout the debate (repeating a single, somewhat-unrelated fact that the opposing team cannot thoroughly respond to while ignoring other more relevant points made is my most specific example of this). Additionally, speaking at a fast pace is perfectly acceptable so long as everything is coherent and clear for everyone involved. I would really prefer competitors to avoid "spreading," or simply trying to read off information as fast as they possibly can.

I am a first time judge so please speak slowly and track your time for speeches, cross fires and prep time.

Please avoid jargon and give your speeches in a structured format to avoid confusion. Do remember to be respectful!

I am currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I competed on my high school's varsity debate. I was elected co-captain my senior year and was one of the highest-ranked debate duos in the Philadelphia public league. I do not have much experience with Public Forum debate, but I have done some research on the style and conventions.

I value respectful and factual debating. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, don't interrupt or talk over your opponents during any part of the debate. I prefer coherent and clear speeches over speeches that are fast and attempt to fit in as many words as possible in the allocated time. I tend to reject false dichotomies and logical fallacies. Keep your arguments straightforward, if you can focus on one central argument and really support it throughout the entire debate, that will serve you better than half-supporting several different arguments.

I don't usually keep track of time, but with the new online format we can play it by ear.

I am a parent judge from a school that practices traditional styles of debate. Please do not spread and please keep your own (and each other's) time.

I am seeking sound logic and clear links between the evidence and the impact.

Hi, I am both a debater and a judge. Here are some preferences and things you should avoid when debating.

Preferences:

I like debaters to give clear roadmaps of their speeches and have easy to follow line-by-line

Speak clearly so I can flow all of your important arguments

If you have a specific response, be clear about what it is (Non-uniqueness, turns, etc)

Dislikes:

Do not spread, you may speak quickly if needed but I prefer you to speak at a normal pace

Please do not use unconventional types of arguments in public forum, I think they hurt fairness (Ks!, CPs)

Don't avoid arguments, clash is the most fun part of debate

I am a recent college graduate. I am relatively new to judging. I will take notes on the debate.

Hello all,

I'm a new parent judge, and look forward to this event. A little about me, I have a graduate degree in business and undergrad in computers.

In terms of the debate, be sure to:

- speak clearly and loud enough for the mic to pic up your voice.

- Focus on time, speak slow enough so that I can make appropriate notes, yet fast enough to finish on time.

- Have logical and clear arguments/point and be able to effectively counter.

- Finish with a strong summary

- Be passionate, but considerate, about your positions.

- Have fun.

Present clear, well-organized arguments supported by appropriate evidence. Respectful passion is appreciated, but decorum matters. Bullying an opponent is unacceptable and will lower speaker points. Speed is acceptable (but should not be used to skip over weaker parts of your argument), and I recommend you do not speak so quickly that your arguments cannot be absorbed or I cannot take adequate notes. Kritiks is fine, but arguments should be coherent, relevant and on-point. Have fun!

Please don't talk too fast - I'd like to hear and process everything you're saying. To win the debate in my eyes, you have to convince me why your side saves more lives, provides better economic opportunities, better ensures the safety of citizens, etc. If your weighing mechanism is different than your opponents' (you argue that your side provides better economic opportunity, while your opponents argue that their side saves more lifes) argue to me why your weighing mechanism matters more (or even better, how your side satisfies your opponents' weighing mechanism more than their own argument e.g. wider economic opportunities will save more lives in the long run). Just because you say your point negates one of your opponents' contentions doesn't mean I will believe you. You've got to convince me.

This is my second time judging PF. Based on my limited experience, I'm looking primarily for clarity in terms of argument, evidence, and (especially) delivery.

I appreciate well-thought out arguments & logic.

Please do not spread!

I‘m a parent judge, so I don’t understand too much debate terminology.

I’m excited to watch you all debate!

This is my third year judging PF.

I am a practicing physician and can always appreciate a good debate.

I value organization and the use of credible evidence to support your arguments.

Speak clearly at an understandable pace and above all please be respectful of your opponents.

The email you can use to share evidence: rkap02@yahoo.com

I am a lay judge without a lot of debate experience. I am mostly going to pick the team that best convinced me of their argument rather than technical debate points.

I prefer that you don't speak too quickly so i can follow your arguments. I like structure - off time roadmaps, use outlines/number your points, tell me why your team won the debate, etc.

I am a business/finance guy with a general interest in politics and world events.

Hello,

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

Content Preferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logistical Preferences

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

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

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

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

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

PF Paradigm

I am highly conscious of my role as a judge to put my own bias aside, to listen intently, and to come to conclusions based on what you bring to a round. If you and your partner prove to me that your warrants, evidence, and impacts weigh more heavily in the round than your opponents then you win, plain and simple. Please don't tell me the burden is on the other team to prove or disprove or whatever else. Public Forum Debate focuses on advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

I have a serious problem if you misconstrue evidence or neglect to state your sources thoroughly- you have already created unnecessary questions in my mind.

Rebuttals are a key part of debate and I need to hear a point by point refutation and clash and then an extension of impacts. Refuting an argument is not "turning" an argument. Arbitrary and incorrect use of that term is highly annoying to me. A true turn is difficult at best to achieve-be careful with this.

I cannot judge what I can't clearly hear or understand-I can understand fast speech that is enunciated well, but do you really want to tax your judge?-Quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of points/sub-points, or rapid-fire speech and it is incumbent upon you and your partner to make sure you tell me what I need to hear to weigh appropriately-it is not my job to "fill in the blanks" with my personal knowledge or to try to spend time figuring out what you just said. Also spreading is a disrespectful tactic and defeats the purpose of the art of debate-imho- so don't do it. (See Quality not Quantity above).

The greater the extent of your impacts, the greater the weight for me. If you and your partner are able to thoroughly answer WHY/HOW something matters more, WHY/HOW something has a greater impact, WHY/HOW your evidence is more important, that sways me more than anything else.

Lastly, be assertive, not aggressive. Enjoy the challenge.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for three years. I find the topics interesting and love hearing the rounds, but I never debated myself. I value logical arguments, but I find it hard to vote off of far fetched arguments that have long link chains. I flow but if you talk too fast I won't be able to follow. I'd appreciate it if you didn't use too much jargon. And most of all, be sure to have fun!

Hi!! I did PF in high school, currently a junior in college. Here are some of my preferences/things I like to see in rounds:

1. If you want me to vote on an argument, explain it clearly in summary and final focus.

2. Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you're the second speaking team, defend any arguments you want to extend in second rebuttal.

3. Collapse! Please don't extend more than 1 (maybe 2) argument in summary. It's better to clearly explain 1 contention than speed through 3.

4. Weigh! Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponents'.

5. Be nice in cross! Please don't interrupt or talk over your opponents. If you do, I'll drop speaks. I'm not flowing cross, so if something important happens that you want me to consider, tell me in a speech.

I'll flow the round– please make sure to explain everything clearly, collapse, and weigh

Most importantly, please be nice and have fun!

I look for fluency and structure in arguments and speaking. I do enjoy some solid jokes from time to time. And don't forget to live a little. Please also enjoy the competition!

LD: No spread is preferable, I am not Ben Shapiro and neither are you, you can slow down your speaking speed, just a bit. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge you appropriately.

I am the older sister of a debater and a current college student. I do not have any debate experience so please go easy on me - talk slow, be clear with your arguments... all the "lay" things y'know? (At least that's what my sister told me I was called).

I will dock speaker points if you are rude or insufferable, so please try to be nice.

Make sure to explain your arguments and source well - I didn't do research on this topic.

Don't make complicated arguments. Don't use technical terms. If I don't understand your argument you ain't winning.

I am a first-time parent volunteer judge. I will be looking for clear, concise points throughout the initial presentation, rebuttal, and summary. I appreciate a measured delivery and encourage passionate debate, but not rude behavior.

Speak clearly, don’t be rude, win round off of a strong summary, weighing, and clear arguments/voting issues. Big bonus speaker points for signposting. Does not look good when you extend through ink, so please frontline and then extend.

Unique arguments appreciated!

I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. I would appreciate slower speed and clear arguments. The stronger and supported by the evidence arguments will win. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate.

The role of my position as a judge is to decide who did the better debating. My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. I default to cost-benefit analysis unless told to do otherwise.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone, and convince them why your side is right. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

I did PF in high school! Here are some things I like to see in a round:

1. Pretty extensions. If you want me to vote on an argument, re-explain it in summary and final focus.

2. Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you want me to vote on one of your contentions, you should defend it in second rebuttal.

3. Collapsing. It's better to pick and clearly explain 1 of your contentions than speed through 3.

4. Weighing. Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponents'.

5. A friendly crossfire. Please don't interrupt or talk over your opponent in cross. I probably won't pay attention to crossfire, but if people are being mean I'll drop speaks.

I'm not super familiar with progressive arguments (k, theory, etc.), so if you do run them please explain them well.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

P.S. if you do a TikTok dance/make a TikTok reference you'll get +.5 speaks

I enjoy judging and I admire the hard work and dedication that it takes for you to prepare for these tournaments. I really want to follow your arguments and appreciate your prepared positions.

Speak slowly and clearly, finish your sentences and complete your thoughts. If I cannot understand what you say because you are speed reading through your notes or galloping along with pressured speech, I will not give you the win.

Please help me be a good judge by allowing me the opportunity to understand your words when you speak.

I prefer a balance of fully developed and efficient reasoning over voluminous recitation of facts and a litany of citations that are presented without a clearly woven argument. Do not paraphrase cards - quote directly from sources when using them to support your claims.

Don't raise your voice or shout - decibels do not win debates. Nor do eye rolls or scowls.

I appreciate off time road maps.

Lay Parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and explain why I should vote for you.

I am a Science Teacher and an attorney. I have coached debate for 2 years and Mock Trial for 7 years. Please remember to be confident and courteous in your argument. You must respect debate as well as your competitors and colleagues. I have been judging debate for 3 years.

I look for structure and clarity in your arguments.

I am a parent judge.

Hello! My name is Victoria and I have just graduated from Barnard! I did public forum debate from 7th-11th grade, and for that reason am a flow judge. Make sure to extend your arguments throughout the round, address what has been dropped, and address framework (if one is given). In the final speeches, give me clear voters. Logic and reason are still important to me, so just extending an argument isn't enough: explain your link chain, and convince me! I also prefer that teams keep track of their own time, and don't take too long finding and sending cards.

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

I participated in PF for 1 year and Congress for 2 years in high school, but now that I'm in college I've been out of this world for a bit.

I would appreciate clear and concise arguments, as well as demonstrations that participants have thought critically about their own arguments and their opponents'.

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

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

short version:

• flow judge comfortable with progressive arguments

• make me intervene as little as possible

• less weight to arguments the later they are made

• time yourselves

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

general thingies

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

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

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

i have a pretty bad poker face.

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

this means:

• really spell out how my ballot should look like

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

my defaults are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

other things

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

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

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

APDA

EXPERIENCE:

- Debated at American University

SPEED:

- Don't spread - quality over quantity

SPEECHES:

- Signpost

- I like a quality narrative - better speaks

Framework/Impacts:

- Clearly weigh impacts under a set framework - don't leave me to do it

PF

EXPERIENCE:

- Debated for four years on the national circuit at St. Joseph's Preparatory School.

SPEED:

- As long as you're not spreading, I should be fine. (Signpost along the way in your speeches)

EVIDENCE:

- I will call for a piece of evidence only if the opposing team explicitly tells me to do so or if I feel a piece of evidence is misrepresented.

HOW I DECIDE THE ROUND:

1.) I'll be looking to the framework that has been more heavily warranted to be more valid than the opposing framework.

2.) I'll begin evaluating the arguments/impacts set forth under said framework. I will use the weighing that you have set forth for me in summary/FF - If you do not weigh for me, I will be doing it for you (it's best you not leave it up to me)

*Note: If an argument is not in BOTH summary and final focus, I will not evaluate it no matter how good of an argument it is (barring terminal defense).

I’m currently a first-year student at Duke and I competed mainly in Congressional Debate during high school and have had experience in Public Forum.

In Congress - I will be looking at strong link chains in your argument. Everything has to make sense if you want to be scored well. Argumentation will be valued over presentation (probably around 75% argumentation 25% presentation). Make sure you are respectful to your fellow competitors. I want to see a lot of clash and no rehashed arguments. If you can pull off a strong refutation/crystalization speech that will be scored better than bringing up two new points towards the end of the debate. Make sure you ask lots of good questions and are attentive throughout the debate. POs should be fair, respectful, and efficient. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

In PF - Please no spreading or talking obnoxiously loud just to talk over your competitors. Make sure your link chains are strong and everything is as clear as possible. I'll want to see you cite from strong sources and are well prepared. If you want me to vote on your side I'll have to see a humanized impact (human reason). Presentation doesn't really matter to me I'll look at your argumentation and how you respond to your opponents mainly. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

yes I want to be on the email chain: junewearden05@gmail.com

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '18

Pitt '22

WARNING: I have only been peripherally engaged with the immigration topic - if you're going to use acronyms / do in-depth law analysis you're going to have to slow down and explain it to me

When I debated in high school I primarily ran soft-left affs, but I don't (think) I have a strong ideological preference. I'm not going to pretend I'm tabula rasa but there are very few arguments I will a priori vote down. (For instance, I'm never going to vote for racism = good)

As long as you can provide me with a coherent explanation of your world-view and how that relates to what is being said in the round you'll be okay.

If you have questions about more specific arguments/positions feel free to ask.

Parent Judge.

If you have any questions before the round, please ask.

The more conversational your pace, the more likely I am to digest what you're saying.

I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. If something is important, tell me early and often.

Crossfire isn't binding, so point out concessions. But don't abuse the rules, especially in final focus.

Please avoid debate jargon. There's a good chance I won't know what you're saying.

Most importantly, be respectful. You should certainly be assertive, but don't be rude.

Good luck!

N.B. No K's. No theory.

Parent judge that might not know much about the topic. Spreading, theory/Ks, and jargon are probably not a good idea. Lay judge is the name of the game.

Be nice. :)

I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contention cards are dropped, slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive.

Thank you and looking forward to a great debate.

I did forensics in HS but I don't do it in college. I am lowkey and okay with anything but I have not done debate in a few years so I may not be a good judge for anyone wanting to run complex theory or spread super fast. Be courteous to each other or I will deduct speaker points. 30 speaker points for whoever is competing from home and shows their pet. If I show off my cats first, the debate round ends and I go home with all the speaker points.

Hi, I'm a parent judge! I have almost no judging experience or topic knowledge so please keep that in mind.

Please no spreading and reduce the debate jargon. I am more interested in TRUE arguments rather than wacky, random arguments. Remember, if I can't understand what your argument is, I won't want to vote for it.

I don't keep track of time, so I leave that up to both teams to check each others times.

Thanks