Hello, thank you for reading my paradigm.  I have four years of PF debate experience and qualified for Nationals twice. I will be flowing your arguments and deciding who wins based off of well cited evidence that is constantly referenced throughout every speech since its brought up (cleanly extending arguments). How should I weigh your arguments? Please tell me in speech using impact calculation.

I have been an IE judge since 1998.

I have 25 years of experience in speech activities.

I don't like presenters to talk too fast. I am looking for well-developed arguments. I need competitors to read their sources to me (not just a name and a date), and I want speakers to weigh the impacts of the round in their final two speeches each.

I expect competitors to be polite and professional and want a good exchange of ideas.

I assure you I will not vote on my own preconceptions or beliefs about the topic, but make my decisions based upon what is said in the round.

If competitors don't tell me how to evaluate the various arguments, and I am left to figure it out myself, they've done a poor job of debating the topic.

I'll judge based on only the information given in the debate. Also, don't be jerks.

My name is Daniel, my pronouns are he/him, and I was a Public Forum debater in high school and am now a volunteer assistant coach. I'm a pretty lay judge. Absolutely no spreading. I prefer a decently lay round but if you are a very techy team it won't hurt your speaker points at all and as long as I can understand your arguments it certainly won't hurt your case. I believe in the game of debate. Crystalize to me why you won the round and weigh heavily.

Hi,

Here are my expectations/paradigm for the round. 

- Running obscure arguments on your opponents might seem super cool, but showing probability and a clear link chain will probably have a better chance of winning.

- Second rebuttal needs to address turns from first rebuttal, otherwise your rebuttal is a little too late. 

- First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless you think its absolutely necessary for whatever reason. 

- You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot.

- I'm all for taking control of CX/the round but if you are abusive/disrespectful in doing so it will reflect poorly on the ballot. Treat you opponents like human beings and we'll all have a good time. 

-In terms of speed if your flow and delivery is hot and clear I'm writing it down. If you wanna be Speed Racer go ahead as long as you feel a reasonable person can still understand you. 

-Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions later on last name will suffice).

-Tate 

Hello Everyone! My name is Beth Fowler and I am an historian and Senior Lecturer at Wayne State University. I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that builds to a persuadable argument. I also want debaters to listen carefully to their opponents arguments, and to be able to address them clearly rather than simply reiterating their own points. Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments, and the summation to clearly explain how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument.

I am a senior captain with experience in policy debate!

Any derogatory comments, hate-speech, or bullying will not be tolerated.

Make sure to frame your arguments throughout the round, don't force me to use my own discretion.

Cross-fire is not binding, bring it into the speeches if you would like it be considered in the round.

Speaker Points: I will give 29-range for exceptional speaker points, 27-28 range for most speakers, and below 26 for ethical/serious issues with speaking.

Hi everyone! My name is Emma Gavriliuc and I'm a junior at the University of Michigan (Go Blue!)

Yes, put me on the email chain: eagavriliuc@gmail.com

Experience:

I did PF for one year and am now an assistant coach for our middle school pf and policy teams. I've done policy for four years so I'm fine with speed and just about any argument, but if you're unclear I will not try to decipher your arguments for you. Clarity over speed always.

For Policy Debate:

Top-Level:

• I read along with speech docs and prefer clear, relatively slow, and organized debates.
• Again, send me the docs. You have my email.
• Card quality and recency is huge - evidence quality in general is an important and valuable component
• Share docs with all parties, if it's a new aff I will still chalk non-shared docs up to the aff simply being bad.
• Generally against war-good arguments, I see very little persuasion and relevance. They're just not convincing
• Use Cross-X effectively and bring any arguments through to your speeches, I will not flow cross-x but its valid if it comes up in your speech later

How to sway me:

• Give me a clear picture and clear understanding of the world you are presenting
• Evidence quality is important - so is recency
• I enjoy and will be more persuaded by a slower debate with strong arguments and evidence. If you're faster, I can and will follow - but please
• The 2nr/2ar should spend the first 15-20 seconds explaining how I should vote with judge instruction.
• If you laid a trap, tell me, because I’m probably not going to vote on something that wasn’t flagged as an argument.
• Have, utilize, and explain internal links!

What I don't like

• Word PICs - unless you genuinely think you can make me care and that it will change the course of the debate, I think these are just silly
• Negs that start with 9 + offcase positions, I prefer quality to quantity. It's, of course, fine to start with more than what you end with - but please don't just throw things out there for the sake of wasting time
• Offensive language - don't do it. Don't be rude to your partners, your opponents, or me. If you're rude or offensive, it will drastically impact your points and my perception as well. Just be nice
• No old camp blocks - I've seen them. Try not to use them. It won't lose you a round, but you can do better and the round will be better as a whole with your own blocks as well

Topicality:

• Be intentional with topicality. Make sure you have all components of topicality included in your shell. Make it relevant to the round and topic and please do flesh out any impacts associated
• That said, I like debates that have stories. I like debates about real topics with real clashing of arguments. Use topicality if you want, but not to the extent that the debate loses the essence of the topic at hand.

Critical affs:

• Is there a role of the ballot? Make that clear
• Framework: Explain the topical version of the aff; use your framework impacts to turn/answer the impacts of the 1ac; if you win framework you win the debate because…
• A debate has to occur and happen within the speech order/times of the invite; the arguments are made are up to the debaters and I generally enjoy a broad range of arguments

Kritiks:

• Not a fan of high theory, but I'll listen to them
• Framework is huge - what is the framework for evaluating the debate? What does voting for the alternative signify? What should I think of the aff’s truth statements?
• Please please please be clear and consistent with what your alt is
• Perms are really persuasive to me - if you want to win against a perm be really careful with the arguments you're presenting and how you go about it on the neg. I tend to vote aff on perms but I do get excited by negs that respond well and can convince me otherwise

Disads

• Overviews on disads are good - please do include
• Focus on internal links here please

Counterplans

• Please have a specific and clearly described solvency advocate and solvency mechanism
• Consult and conditions counterplans are probably illegitimate - if you think you can convince me otherwise, please do give it a try

Theory/Rules:

• I guess they're fine but flesh the impact and value of these arguments

*

For Public Forum:

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. What you give me is what I will weigh.

I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that build a persuasive argument.

I can tell if you haven't listened to your opponents arguments so please do yourself a favor and actually flow.

I will be updating my paradigm frequently based on things that I do and do not want to see.

When Speaking:

- Be confident but don't be cocky

- Be clear

- Remember that you're trying to persuade ME not your opponents.

Do:

- Clash with each others arguments rather than simply reiterating your own points

- Extend the arguments that you are winning on

- Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments (evidence comparison makes me happy)

- Clearly explain to me how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument

- Defense is good, but don't overlook offense

- Organize your speech strategically please

- Tell me what your winning on and what your opponents have dropped as well - leverage these things

Don't:

- Say anything rude, offensive, insensitive, or derogatory - none of it will fly with me and it shouldn't fly with anyone else either

- Speak over opponents or your partner in round

- Just say that you won without proving to me why I should actually vote for you and why your arguments have won you the round

I look forward to watching you debate!

Getting my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed at Wayne State, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Start slower and settle into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format. I rarely follow along with docs.

Non-important old man yelling at cloud moment: The 1ac is an opportunity for free speaker points and sets the tone for the debate, a lot of people sound like they don't practice reading it.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate offense in a debate generally wins my ballot. This is universally true for all argument styles and debate formats. I am very flow dependent. Specifics listed below, but absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. Communication surrounding the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A great card that is undersold and not explained and applied may get my appreciation when you bring it to my attention in the post-round, but absent you directing me to the significance of that evidence or why I need to read it won't be important to my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the lengths many of my peers turn to the docs to verify claims that in my mind are just not being debated. If your arguing on the line by line in no way questions the other team's characterization of evidence, I will never go on a fact finding mission.

I expect debater's to make relevant issues on evidence known in the debate.

Debater's should answer arguments.

You don't get to walk-back win conditions you establish that are conceded.

Thoughts on framework:

Full transparency I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a debater as a one-off position, and can be compelled that there should be some limit on the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I am also highly sympathetic given my personal pedagogical and research interests as a scholar of alternative interpretations of the resolution for the purposes of interdisciplinary/undisciplined debates. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. In my mind a counter interpretation provides a useful avenue for resolving both sides offense and is often a place where I wish the negative invested more time in the block and 2nr.

That being said, I have been persuaded by affirmative teams who impact turn framework without a counter interpretation. Iterations of this argument which have been persuasive to me in the past include critiques of predictability as a means to actualize clash, critiques of fiats epistemic centrality to clash/fairness/education, arguments which emphasize styles of play over notions of fairness for the game, as well as impact turning the rhetorical performance of framework.

A frequent line in decisions I vote aff on framework, "I think the negative is winning a link on limits explosion, but has underdeveloped the internal link between limits to clash/fairness/epistemic skills as an impact, and furthermore that impact's relationship to the way the aff has framed insert X DA or X impact from the 2ac overview on case is never once articulated". I'm a big believer in if you want to say T/framework is engagement you should actually engage the language and impacts the aff has presented, I will not fill in these connections for you because you say "praxis or debate is key to activism".

Teams over-emphasize the TVA without fully developing the argument. A core dilemma for the negative in round's I judge is the TVA's interaction with affirmative themes, performances, and theories remain superficial and surface level at best. Even when a great piece of evidence is read by the negative, it is an error in execution for the negative to rely on the judge to resolve these connections. My threshold for the TVA being "sufficient" is often higher then my peers. Given the value of the TVA as a way to resolve affirmative offense it is a spot where I think the negative must dig deep(ala Jeff Probst from Survivor) to put themselves ahead in a debate. There are many ways the negative can do this effectively, but all require a more thorough incorporation of the TVA from the onset of your strategy. It's bad form and a missed opportunity when the negative refuses to give an example/or doesn't know of a TVA in C-X of the 1nc. I'm a believer that there is a benefit in the negative block introducing other TVAs in the negative block, The 2nc should tie TVA's to performances, impact arguments, and theories of the 1ac. Saying you could have talked about X thing as a performance instead often falls flat. Do research pre-round or pre-tournament into the artefacts of the 1ac, be creative, you can incorporate them I believe in you.

I am also not a particularly good judge for negative impact explanations which rely on the assumption that the values of research/clash/fairness/iteration are inherent/exclusive benefits of a limited model. The negative often debates in front of me operating from the assumption the aff will win none of their offense or has abandoned these values in their entirety, this is both a bad move and often just a blatant mischaracterization of aff debating. An example with iterative testing. A premise which is hard to dislodge me from: all research is iterative, full-stop. Even when the aff has no counter interpretation, their research practices and argumentative styles are iterative because they build upon previously written research and arguments. This means arguments like iterative testing require more specificity in their explanation. The framing of "Only the negative model allows room for teams to refine arguments to third and fourth level" often rings hollow because it is more descriptive of the strategic incentives to develop arguments over the course of a season (which likely exist in any research activity), and not describe the actual benefit of the style of iteration of your model. A more persuasive iteration impact to me focuses on the question of quality and utility of each models style of iteration, tending more to questions like: is there an insurgent/epistemic benefit to maximizing iteration of state based politics vs negative critique? Instead of saying "the aff always goes for the perm in K v K debates," delve into questions of how affirmative models might distort the capaciousness of K v K debate? Or shutdown debates that are meaningful in the literature through standards and practices of debate's offense/defense paradigm? Are there moments where the aff contradicts their model or counter interp performatively? What is the significance of these contradictions? Are there potentially negative effects of the aff model for subjectivity? All of this is really my way of pleading with you burn the blocks of your predecessor, make some new arguments, read a book, do something.

Creativity and negative argument development on framework has plateaued.

You all sound the same.

I will be extremely frustrated if you opt to go for framework over any argument that is clearly well-developed and clashes with the aff that they blow off. There are many rounds where the 2nr decision to go for framework shocks me given 1ar coverage. Don't include A+ material if you are not prepared to go for it.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

I miss straight impact turning and link turning strategies from aff teams.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to.

New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Ethics challenges brought up pertaining to fabrication or out of context evidence submitted into a round end the debate for me. If it is determined that the ev is fabricated or meaningfully out of context then the team who introduced the evidence receives a loss and the low end of my point scale.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

I have been judging debate and forensics tournaments for 5+ years.

With a long career in business, my judging in debate tournaments is based on the quality and delivery of information to support your position - solid evidence with an outstanding presentation.

For forensics competitions, the selection of the piece or product combined with your your creative interpretation are the key winning factors.

As a judge, I prefer if you try to be as self sufficient as possible. Especially when debating remotely, please time yourselves so you can avoid running over. Also, on crossfire, make sure you are asking questions and not just rambling on about evidence (debaters, if your opponents are just stating evidence please call them out by asking "do you have a question").

As for the content of the debate, please extend all relevant arguments throughout the round. I don't want to hear extensions of contentions in final focus if they weren't extended through to final summary. Also, I want to see weighing of impacts in final focus. You need to tell me what your impacts are and why they matter.

Experience

Umich'25 :D

PF & a fair amount of policy -- currently coach a few PF teams, some of whom have done well at the TOC.

Note: guys I was telling everyone for, like, MONTHS that they were gonna learn how to debate fwk and ontology vs. planless affs for the PF TOC and nobody believed me!!!!! But I was right!!!!!

Email chain: MCDPrepDocs@gmail.com & Meskouri@umich.edu

General/TLDR

Top: fairly experienced tech -- have evaluated basically everything. Adam, not "judge."

Yes K (both pre & post), yes theory, no excessive speed (usually good for like ~250 wpm with docs I think but anything further and I'll be cooked). Swearing is fine, just don't be egregious w/it.

PF judging is in a rough spot right now -- I frequently see bad judges get away with hilariously terrible decisions, even in elims and bid rounds (many of my 2-1s are blatant parent screws lol). I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen to you.

I thus encourage debaters to use my rounds to do/practice things that they can't do in front of other judges -- this means you should consider me open to any style of debate including substance, debates about debate, debates about debating about debate, etc. Do whatever you want, just be clear -- be flayish in presentation (err on the side of urgent > speedy) and I'll 100% catch everything. To clarify, this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, prefiat/postfiat K, theory etc etc) so long as you aren't spreading (>250 wpm) through them. My camera will usually be off as it helps me flow better.

This paradigm is purposefully blippy as I recognize that, more often than not, paradigms aren't read in full prior to round. If you have any burning questions, ask!

Make a Garfield or Babytron reference for +0.5 speaks!

Specs

• Email me the 1AC and 1NC (non-negotiable) & preferably rebuttal docs with all ev and (only if you can) analytics-- I will cap speaks if constructive docs are not sent and will raise speaks if rebuttal docs are. To be clear, constructive docs are non-negotiable.

• I really like good rounds and really hate bad rounds. Generally, “good” teams will be diligent about the LBL, give good OVs, signpost extremely well, and extend the right pieces of big picture offense/defense -- write my ballot for me. I tend to reward debaters for tricky responses, but that is not to say that you should be blipping out 15 incoherent analytics per minute. Remember to extend your warrants as a way of resolving clash!

• K is chill, but only if you’re good at it – I haven’t been convinced that PFers can debate K like they can theory or substance quite yet. I can follow most reps Ks and many prefiat/performance ones. Similarly, I feel comfortable evaluating the responses to Ks (T-FW, TVA, SSD, ballot pik, perm etc). I can't follow phil.

• DISCLAIMER: apparently I borderline hack for perfcons. I think they usually outweigh the ivi/shell/K and it is tough to convince me otherwise unless you're reading unfairness good.

• Theory is cool! I like to think I’m a decent judge for it who has seen or evaluated most shells. Feel free to pref me if you read stuff like disclo, paraphrasing, speed, or any wacky non-friv (tbh, you can read friv, j be willing to commit to it). Don't spread through your shell. Going for 1-2 standards is usually better than blipping out 5 in final. The only part of theory that bores me is the bottom half (CI, RVI, etc). Obv, disclo is good and para is bad. But, I've voted for disclo bad and para good. Writing "contact info is term defense" on your wiki is silly and almost always unpersuasive and wrong.

• T is a voter. Debated equally vs. a Kaff, it'll probably win. I'm pretty receptive to TVA and SSD on a truth level -- not sure how I feel about the ballot PIK. My views on debating vs. alts are the same as my views on debating vs. impacts: both of them deserve more analysis and defense/offense. Procedural fairness probably o/w most impacts absent a great explanation of how the performance does something tangible and why that round specifically is k2 something important. I'll vote on fairness impact turns.

• Egregious speed is bad -- assume I can follow 65-70% of your top pace. The back half should be slower than the front half. Not sure how I feel about new ev in second sum.

• Cheating is bad. I will do my best to ensure that the 2FF doesn't get away with murder. Have cut cards ready to send ASAP -- I won't accept hyperlinks. You have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal. DAs in rebuttal are obviously fine. (and probably underutilized if you can explain why the DA o/w their link).

• A lot of "turns" in PF are just DAs. If your turn isn't responsive to the actual link and instead says that the aff/neg does something tangential which makes their impact worse, you need to spend way more time weighing the turn against their link. If the turn IS responsive, you need to do a little less of that.

• Defense is kinda sticky because the time constraints of PF make extending everything hard, BUT that does not mean you don’t have to say “extend the mining NL” for me to flow it.

• A quick tip: if you're spending 30s/speech on it while they're spending 2m/speech, they're probably winning it.

• Debate in a way that allows fun for everyone.
  
  

Hi! My name's Erin O'Donnell and I use she/her/hers pronouns. Feel free to refer to me as Judge, Erin, or whatever else feels comfortable to you!

Background: I'm a co-captain of Traverse City Central's Public Forum Debate Team. This is my fourth year of debate/second year of Public Forum, and have a decent level of familiarity with the rules and guidelines of Public Forum, but please feel free to correct me if you think I have a misunderstanding of speech times, order, or anything of that nature.

Clarity: Do your best to clearly explain your arguments to me, carry them through all of your speeches, and give clear indicators of what arguments you are discussing throughout your speeches. Along with this, make sure you frame the debate throughout the round and clearly tell me why I should vote for your team. I don't have any issue with you speaking at a semi-fast pace as long as what you're saying is still clearly understandable to me and your opponents.

Cross-fire: Please make sure to be respectful of your opponents during each cross-fire. When I'm judging, cross-fire is not binding, nor is it a separate speech; if you think you have brought up a good point or argument during cross-fire, make sure to include it in your next speech in order for me to consider it while making my final decision.

Speaker Points: I will give somewhere around 29 to 30 speaker points for exceptional speakers (those who display an excellent level of understanding and are incredibly clear, persuasive speakers), 27-28 points for most speakers, and 26 or below for ethical/serious issues with speaking.

As stated above, make sure to be respectful to your opponents; I will not tolerate any bullying, hate-speech, or rude/derogatory comments during your round.

Good luck, and try not to stress too much! Debate is a difficult but rewarding sport, and you should all be proud of yourselves just for being here :)

Public Form was originally designed with the framework that any reasonably educated lay person could follow an argument, weigh the evidence, and judge which side had greater merit. This is the precise premise from which I, as a former high school history teacher, will listen to your round and judge.

I will base my decision on the following 3 criteria:

1) Speech: Speaking slowly and clearly is critical. If you speak much too rapidly or in monotone, it’s hard to understand what you are saying, so it will not matter in the end how good your arguments are. Strive to enunciate, be articulate, and modulate your voice. Keep me engaged and listening.

2) Evidence: Your arguments should be easy to follow, logical, and practical. You should organize your evidence so that similar arguments are grouped together. It helps if you enumerate the arguments.

3) Decorum and Civility: Show respect to your opponent. Disagreements should never be disrespectful nor personal. Maintain a courteous, calm, and professional attitude and demeanor.

Remember that you are addressing and making a pitch to an informed and engaged citizen, not a professional speech and debate judge.

I debated all throughout high school, so I am very familiar with the mechanics of PF debate. Here is what I ask of you in each round:

1. Be kind and polite to your competitors. Being rude will affect speaker points, and in some extreme cases, the outcome of the round.

2. Talk at a pace that is reasonable to everyone in the round. I can flow speed and will clear you if you are just going too fast, but if I think that you are using speed as a tool to make the round inaccessible to your competitors, that may affect speaker points/outcome of the round.

3. Provide a clear explanation of why you should be winning the round. This will help you to be more sure of the outcome of the round. If you leave me to weigh impacts or compare frameworks, you are giving me a lot of control over the outcome of the round.

4. Provide evidence in a clear and accessible manner. I am totally fine with "Author Name, Year" citations (and in fact, I think this is how you should always cite after the first time you mention the card), but make sure that your citations are consistent and accurate. I will not ask for evidence at the end of the round (unless there is some major disagreement about what the card actually says in the round) because I feel that this is the responsibility of the debaters.

--If evidence is requested by your opponents, you must produce it in 90 seconds, or it will eat into your prep time. When reviewing evidence, that is your prep time. If I think you are using evidence request as a means to steal prep time, I will call you out and it will be reflected in your speaker points.

5. CrossX is a time for asking and answering questions. If I think that you are abusing the purpose of CrossX to respond to your opponent's answers, I will interrupt you. If it continues, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

6. Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Debate is an excellent learning opportunity, and if there is anything that I can do to make it more educational, just let me know. I am always available via email: rmreilly@umich.edu.

Thank you! Good luck!

DAVIN REUST

Brief Bio: I competed in high school debate in Wichita, Kansas… in 2003. I attended Wichita State University and then Michigan Law School.

Today, I’m a prosecutor. That shapes a lot of how I view debate; I view this as a chance to gain skills that you will continue to use. To that end, I prefer common sense arguments that are well fleshed out.

TLDR: I am a stock issues judge at my core, but I’ll entertain anything. If it’s too out there, I need you to walk me through it a bit more, but I’m willing to vote on it.

Long Version:

Aff. Case: I like a well-structured Aff. I typically want you to lay out inherency, harms, solvency, and advantages. I also really want a well-defined plan, including funding and solvency timeframe.

On-Case: I thoroughly enjoy a strong on-case attack by the 1NC. It shows you were ready for anything. I like it even more if you are later able to tie the 1NC on-case attacks into your existing DAs or an entirely new one.

DAs: I typically want a solid link before I will vote on a DA. Once you have that, the Aff. had better either take out the link or outweigh the impact with advantages.

T: I’m more than happy to vote on T—it was one of my favorite attacks when I debated. That said, use a good definition and be clear about why / how the Aff. violates.

CPs: I wasn’t a huge fan of them for a long time, but I’ve come around. That said, I’m also very open to Aff. responses that the CP can just be perm’d.

Nits: I want a road map more than I want anything in the round. If that’s good, you’re well on the way to winning.

I don’t like tag team cross-x. I would typically prefer it if both speakers stand at the podium, face the judges, and don’t directly address each other.

I’m fine with speed, but I need you to slow down when you read the tag and associated argument. If you don’t slow down for those things, I will likely miss something.

Public Forum Debate:

I competed all 4 years of high school in Public Forum at Dexter High School, and have been coaching/judging since 2018. I mainly judge on use of impact weighing, cohesive arguments and responses, and unique/compelling arguments.

I judge on a mix of tech/truth. I won't necessarily drop a rebuttal or response with theory and no evidence as long as it makes sense, but for larger arguments that your case relies on, evidence is necessary. Decorum during the round (rudeness, interrupting repeatedly during crossfire, et cetera) will affect your score, more on this below. I don't flow crossfire and I don't judge on it, but I will be paying attention for contradictions or lack of knowledge/an answer. I'm not a fan of offtime roadmaps, considering they waste time during the round and serve very little purpose. If you signpost your speech properly, you won't need an offtime roadmap.

At the end of the day, I'll judge mostly on voter issues mentioned in the summary/FF, in terms of what arguments have been dropped, responded to, or are still standing, so make sure to collapse and/or mention your strongest points during the round at the end.

If any of the students in the round are having decorum issues, it will greatly affect my decision. I've noticed that most of these issues happen during crossfire, due to how easy it is to get frustrated with your opponent. While I was competing, I was definitely quick to make a crossfire heated - there's a pretty easy fix for this. Your speeches and your arguments should be addressed to me, and not your opponent. Your job is not to wear down your opponent until they concede, your job is to convince me that your arguments are more important. I hope this reframing of the debate can help some of you, even if crossfire isn't something you initially struggle with. Remember, we're here to learn and have fun, not to get angry at each other over arguments that really don't even matter in reality.

Forensics:

Now that forensics is slowly moving to Tabroom, I'll add a little blurb here about it. I competed in both interp and PA events, but found the most success later on in my forensics career in Broadcasting. I am more inclined towards the PA events and will probably be far more helpful as a judge in those events. If you're in interp and you've gotten a basically blank critique sheet from me, I sincerely apologize (if I have nothing to say it means I had nothing bad to say and didn't really notice you doing anything wrong).

That being said, in interp, there are a few things that I do not appreciate. First, adding too much emotion to lines that don't need that much emotion. If the only way you can come across as upset is by screaming your lines, try something else, like using facial expressions. I know a lot of you have pieces that require you to make loud noises, which is fine, but remember that there are usually people competing right next door. Screaming your entire piece is going to give me a headache and it's going to interrupt the round next door. Secondly, adding in incredibly dramatic scenes that make no sense with the cutting/story you're trying to convey. If you're conveying a character arc that has nothing to do with mental illness or suicide and then out of nowhere your character commits suicide, I will find it in bad taste unless there's a reason for it to be there. I don't take lightly to specifically issues of suicide and it won't give you extra points for having a more "emotional" program. Third, if you can do a cartwheel or a back handspring or whatever sort of gymnastic feat, please do not put it in your piece unless your piece calls for your character to do a gymnastic feat. I once judged a round where three people randomly did cartwheels and I had to decide who had the best cartwheel - please don't make me do that again. Thank you.

Do: Ask me how to win :)

Dont: count down to starting your timer, or tell me when your prep starts, or need time to set up your timer after you were just taking prep. When you ask for prep I'll just start timing then you should be ready to speak when it's done.

In judging Speech events or Debate, I look for similar things. On both sides I look for commitment; it's good to be passionate about your work, although you want to keep that passion in control. I also look at your choice of materials.

In Debate that means depth of research and variety of solid sources; I really do count and evaluate your sources, checking to see how for you went with your own original research. In Speech pretty much the same criteria apply on the PA side, and I'm interested in your choice and validity of sources.as well as freshness: is this a topic/product/thesis I haven't heard repeatedly? In Interp, of course, the shift is that now I'm looking especially at-- as the ballots say-- "quality of literature." Have you chosen material that's emotionally engaging, but not sensationalist? Is it something that appeals to a wide variety of audiences, but isn't just a fad? And, of course, is it something you can invest all your creativity, as well as your heart and soul, in?

Beyond these specifics my judging is much like other experienced judges': I've been at this for 26 years-- and relishing good performances all the way. I'll be rooting for you!

Experience:

Competitive:

-PF Debate for 4 years for Brother Rice (2010-2014)

-Extemporaneous Speaking: 5 years (3 years for Brother Rice, 2 years for the University of Michigan)

-Rhetorical Criticism: 1 year (University of Michigan)

Judging:

-PF Debate (2015 – present) for Brother Rice

Professional:

-Programmer in the defense industry (2018 - present)

I typically flow on paper with colored pens in a notebook so there will be a lot of pen clicking.

I judge based on what I hear in the round, but also making way overgeneralized arguments and statements makes me sad inside.

I weigh what I hear talked about more than I weigh stuff that gets dropped by both teams.

Preferences:

Asking to See the Evidence: Don’t use it to steal prep, have a good reason for doing so.

Signposting: Please. Make it easy for me to follow and flow your arguments and responses.

Speed: Talk as fast as you’d like.

Summary and Final Focus: They’re not rebuttals, please don’t ramble. Being clear and concise about why you are winning goes as long way to helping me flow the round.

Timing: You’re more than welcome to time yourself, but my phone’s timer is the authoritative one.

Hey, my name is Jake, not "Judge".

Addressing me as "Judge" just makes me feel not human and not present in the conversation we're having.

Since the Fall of 2019, I have judged and coached predominantly public forum and congressional debate for Dexter High School. I graduated from MSU with a degree in international relations. I am currently pursuing a Masters in Integrative Management and am a graduate admissions counselor for Michigan State.

I competed in policy debate with MSU from Fall 2015-Spring 2017. I attended Canyon Springs High School in North Las Vegas, Nevada. I’ve done all the forms of debate throughout middle and high school (PF for two middle school years, LD for one year, Congress for a few tournaments, and Policy my sophomore through senior year).

I want to give back to the activity that gave me so much.

I have paradigms written in the order:

1. Public Forum

2. Congress

3. Policy

4. Lincoln Douglas

Public Forum

Please remember that Debate is much more about developing skills than winning a singular debate. I conceptualize Public Forum as an event which can be watched by anyone. You are encouraged to speak clearly rather than "spread". You should strive to learn all the short-hand, technology, and research skills of any other debate. Don't imitate the speaking quirks of other debates.

I'm very much a "flow" judge. I don't care about the things I know about the topic outside of the round, I hope to be completely tabula rasa. If a team says the sky is orange, and it goes uncontested, I will vote assuming the sky is orange. If your response to "The sky is orange." is "That just doesn't make sense, because it's not." I do not want to be the one who does the work for you to assume that because it is not orange it is blue.

I strongly believe that teams should time themselves and call out their opponent when it is "time". If you say you want to use 30 seconds of prep, I will not tell you when those 30 seconds are up, unless you explicitly ask me to be your timer. I will just keep running your time.

You have 3:00 minutes of prep. Use it well. Do not steal prep before speeches. You should be ready when you say you're done. You should immediately go into cross-ex or the next speech. Setting your timer or document up to read is part of prep. Please get better at being more efficient.

Constructives:

I believe the first speaker holds the responsibility of providing definitions and the necessary context for understanding the topic. I do think definitions and context can be framed strategically in favor of the side in which the team is arguing; therefore, I would entertain counter definitions (and warrants to use one definition over another). Also, see the paragraph below about Framework.

I believe that if you are the second speaker, it is strategic for you to have a plethora of contentions that you can draw from to form a case that has built-in answers or "turns" for your opponent's case. For example, you know that you can only fit three contentions into your case to be within time. Yet, you have 5 or 6 possible contentions that you can put together to make a cohesive case. Reading one of your contentions that you know gives you a leg up on your opponents by either turning their argument or refuting their argument is strategic. It will also limit the ability of the first speaker to spread you out after their first rebuttal because the second rebuttal has to not only answer the first rebuttal but provide answers to the opponent's case.

I like it when teams use a lot of evidence, but if you have evidence that is using percentages, decimals, and whole numbers, please just do the conversion so they are all the same. I generally don't like data laundry lists, unless you specifically tell me why each point of data matters.

Summary:

Your summary should invest a lot of your speech time in impact comparison. Go through magnitude, timeline, reversibility (whether there is a brink point), etc. You need to be contextualizing your link scenario. You can not jump from an overview to saying that causes nuclear war without telling me who is fighting and why.

I catch maybe 50% of the authors/citations from the constructives. You can not just say "Extend Krueger" as an answer or extension. I probably don't know what evidence you're referring to. I would prefer if you say, "Extend Krueger which says...". At that point, I will usually catch the citation and call for the evidence if I really need to. I rarely call for evidence.

Final Focus:

Your final focus should start with a Reason for Decision. Tell me at the start the reasons I should vote for you and what my ballot does (does it fiat, actually save lives, decide on a decision about the rules of debate, or is it just a logical decision for which side I think is best.). The best teams can rehash the debate and close all the doors line-by-line.

Cross-Examination:

You should not be asking your opponent to reiterate anything. You should be asking leading questions like, "You said [paraphrase], correct?", "Your first contention was X, correct?". Asking "What was your first contention?" or "Can you explain your link scenario?" just gives your opponents more speech time and often leads to filibustering. If you ask these questions, you're lucky if you get good speaker points. I like teams who filibuster if their opponents don't know how to cross-examine them. I would like cross-ex to end at 3:00 minutes, not 3:30 because you're allowing the other team to ramble.

I don't typically flow cross-examination, but if you're asked a question like, "What is Iran's motivation to attack Israel?" and your response is, "Their feud goes way back." That doesn't give me much confidence that you actually understand your argument. This means your extension of that argument in the speech is just a reiteration with no contextualization, and that's not a good argument.

Framework:

In most of the PF debates I've seen, framework is not argued properly, and it has become an unnecessary 10 seconds of everyone's speech time. If a framework is not mentioned, I assume I should vote for the team attempting to do the greatest good for all people (general utilitarianism). If you want to provide a framework that tells me to vote for the good of America, the poor, the few, etc. tell me, and my ballot will assume that framework unless argued against. If you do not want to contest your opponent's framework, you don't have to. If the framework goes uncontested after the first constructive on either side, I don't need you to extend it through to your summary and final focus.

I think you can tell me whether my ballot has any actual meaning in the world. Does my ballot have a real world impact as soon as I vote? I would also entertain a framework that tells me to vote for the team that provides the best education/practice of skills because my ballot does not impact real policy.

Evidence Sharing:

Public Forum evidence sharing rules are dumb and unclear.

Any evidence read/cited in the round must be made available to the opponent upon request. Teams ought to be able to find and electronically share their evidence very, very rapidly. If the time spent finding a piece of evidence is beyond 90 seconds, I will begin taking prep away from the team asked to provide the evidence. The lack of prep time CANNOT be a reason to deny a team the chance to see their opponent’s evidence.
If a team simply cannot produce their evidence or is out of prep time to find it, it will be dismissed.
Time spent reading the opponent’s evidence must be timed in some way, either as prep time or while another speech/crossfire is underway.

Kritiks:

PF has not evolved to include Kritiks, from what I've seen. I don't think it should evolve in that direction. Four minutes doesn't really allow you enough time to make a good case for a Kritik like argument, and I think Public Forum should really be about developing real-world skills.

Word Choice:

I started to say “y’all” instead of gendered pronouns, but I don’t think what you say outside of your speech or cross-ex should be a reason to lose the debate; unless the team is clearly sexist/racist/etc.

Conduct:

If you enter the room while someone else is talking, I will hold a vendetta against you forever. I’m okay with everyone acting casual and having a good time. I always enjoyed the debates I had against my friends and with judges that I knew. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves, loosen up, and wear whatever. I'll be happy if we are all comfortable and relaxed.

Congressional Debate

My ballots are typically short and include whether you've made an appeal to ethos, logos, or pathos. I try to judge congressional debate as interactive original oratory. Therefore, you should be hold yourself in the role of a senator and making the most appropriate appeal. I judge based on persuasive your speech was in relation to the other debaters, but also how well you held to the appeal you thought was most important on the topic. Make sure you're reading the entirety of the legislation, and speaking to the legislation as written and not the top line idea. Please cite your evidence or at least introduce your author.

Politics is a cut-throat world. I find it humorous that most of the congress rounds I've watched have devolved into this utopian atmosphere where you find a way to make sure everyone can give a speech. I do not like to reward students for being cordial in a competitive event. The presiding officer has the responsibility to give everyone fair and equal opportunities to speak. The other competitors can strategically use the rules of order to be more competitive. If you are consistently overriding the rules to allow multiple Pro speeches in a row, you are not doing anyone favors.

You should be preparing speeches for multiple legislation per round. If you missed your opportunity to speak on the one legislation you had prepared, that sounds like your fault. I also think there are plenty of pieces of legislation that are debatable on both sides, so if you can't play the devil's advocate on lop-sided legislation, you are not "playing the game".

Each speech should have clash. Rebuttal (with a direct reference to the senator who made the argument) is an example of clash. Adding nuance to another senator's point that was on your side is clash. If you are rehashing the same points, you are not clashing, and will not be rewarded for doing so. As the author of a bill, or first speaker on the bill, I evaluate your positive clash by seeing whether you have introduced all the major talking points on your side. I think you can introduce the talking points briefly, and allow other legislators to add evidence.

I think it is very difficult to judge the presiding officer. So long as the presiding officer is staying organized, and doesn't make mistakes, they typically do well. I think presiding officers hold the responsibility of encouraging good debate. They do not have to entertain every motion to postpone the rules and allow the last person to speak if the previous speeches on the topic have only been rehash. Given that presiding officers typically do well, I think it should be a competitive appointment. Unanimous decisions for who should be PO typically mean the kids know who the best in the round is.

For all points of order, I try to use Robert's Rules of Order. I'm no expert, but you should be: http://www.rulesonline.com/index.html

Policy Debate

Speed: You do you. I’m pretty good at following arguments if you’re clear and do work signposting. I have experience debating in front of flow and lay judges so I understand any experience level. Some speeds are impossible to follow unless you have a speech doc; don’t go that fast. I don’t think I ever want to get in the habit of flowing on my computer so you will most likely see me flowing on paper.

Theory: I’d vote on theory if it was dropped. Everyone has to lose on condo at least once in their life. If you’re going to make theory the only thing left in the debate, it needs to take up all of your time and you need to do a good job explaining why they’re abusive. Condo is really only abusive if there is more than 1 of each argument, but I can see either side. I’d still vote on condo (in some cases) if the neg met that interpretation but dropped condo.

T: I really only like watching T if the aff is clearly untopical, or if it’s a Kritikal affirmative. I evaluate the analysis of abuse the same as if it were theory. I don’t mind you putting T in the 1NC if you think it would be a viable 2NR option. I went for “T quid-pro-quo” on the Latin America topic quite a bit, but I knew it was really silly. I can also justify T if it is purely for laughs.

CP/DA: 99% of the time these were my go-to arguments in high school. Go for anything here! Extra bonus if you have aff specific arguments. I don't have too much experience going for politics as the Neg. I always went for PC isn't real as the aff and winners win. It's hard for me to vote on an unquantifiable influence token. I am willing to evaluate the evidence and determine my opinion of politics in the round.

K: Don’t read things that you haven’t done background research on. I read the security k and cap/neolib k throughout high school because I read a ton of books about them. I wrote a 25 page research paper on reevaluating American capitalism during my senior year of high school. I have background with any queer theory/gender/sexuality arguments you might have. Other than that, I’m not very familiar with most arguments, but if you do a good job explaining it, I’ll vote on it. Anything is fair game if it isn’t absolutely absurd. Coming from a background with little experience against the kritik, I can sympathize with the teams that freak out when a Kritik is read against them, but I won’t vote for them if they don’t answer the argument. If you can teach me new things, I’ll be happy.

K Affs: I really don’t understand the purpose of Kritikal affirmatives that don’t have a plan text. Most of the time I just hear implications of what voting aff means without getting a concrete answer. You should have a reason to vote aff, and I’m not sure what the reason is without a plan. I’ll vote for you if you do a good job explaining it. I have a litany of ways I’d scrutinize performative arguments that come from my background in interp. Go for what you do best.

Performance arguments: Most of my high school success came from Humorous Interpretation, where I qualified to the NIETOC twice. While I don’t think this will affect how you debate, it should make you think about how you read any performative arguments in front of me. I have been a 2A, 2N, and double 2s. I had a different partner every year in high school. I was mostly self-taught in policy, and my coach advised me to do a lot of silly things. I was part of the only policy team our school had. Therefore, I understand if you aren’t familiar with certain arguments or have limited backfiles, because I was in the same boat. I always preferred judge philosophies that were broke up into categories after the intro; therefore:

Offense vs. Defense: I feel like there are scenarios where the neg can win if they only have defensive arguments at the end of the debate, but don’t make that your priority. In that instance, I would evaluate that scenario as the world is better without the aff. Yet, I’d vote aff in that scenario if they proved benefits outweighed the cost.

Flashing/Prep/CX: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/email is sent unless there is a clear computer malfunction. Otherwise, it’s just inefficiency on your part. Don’t steal prep time. I am alright with tag team cross-ex, but don’t take all of your partner’s time. Cross-ex is a good opportunity to elaborate on arguments that have been/will be made.

Word Choice: I started to say “y’all” instead of gendered pronouns, but I don’t think what you say outside of the 8/5 speech or cross-ex should be a reason to lose the debate; unless the team is clearly sexist/racist/etc. I’m okay with some cussing, but don’t make it like you’re talking to your best friend. If the other team reads an argument against you for cussing, I’ll laugh and vote for it if it is good.

Conduct: If you enter the room while someone else is talking, I will hold a vendetta against you forever. I’m okay with everyone acting casual and having a good time. I always enjoyed the debates I had against my friends and with judges that I knew, because it was fairly laid back. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves, loosen up, and wear whatever. If you can make me feel comfortable, I’ll be happy.

Bonus points: I like people that express Spartan pride. Make good jokes and puns while speaking. Dance at any appropriate time during the debate. Make a reference to someone you know from Las Vegas. My dad is a magician. If you can do a relevant magic trick, I’d be amazed.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am predominantly a public forum judge and a former policy debater. I'm still learning the nuances of Lincoln Douglas, but hopefully, I can provide you with a clear paradigm. Most importantly, I want you to debate in whatever manner you feel comfortable debating. I can adapt.

I'm very much a "flow" judge. I don't care about the things I know about the topic outside of the round, I hope to be completely tabula rasa. If a team says the sky is orange, and it goes uncontested, I will vote assuming the sky is orange. If your response to "The sky is orange." is "That just doesn't make sense, because it's not." I do not want to be the one who does the work for you to assume that because it is not orange it is blue.

I strongly believe that teams should time themselves and call out their opponent when it is "time". If you say you want to use 30 seconds of prep, I will not tell you when those 30 seconds are up, unless you explicitly ask me to be your timer. I will just keep running your time.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think it is important for each side to present a value and value criterion. If one side has the two, but the other side does not, I will assume I should follow the uncontested value and value criterion.

I am familiar with most philosophies from either my policy experience or the classes I took in college. I'm not a huge fan of advertisements of nihilism, but could be persuaded to understand that some life events are inevitable or needed.

I’ve been coaching for West Bloomfield High School and judging for 7 years. I do not like to intervene and put my personal opinions into the debate. It is up to the debaters to decide how the round will go and to back up their claims through sufficient evidence and reasoning.

DECORUM

Above all else, you are learning and growing as debaters. Any abusive or overly competing behavior does nothing for the educational activity that debate is intended to be.

I do not like when debaters cut each other off during CX. This is a time to understand your opponents case, how are you going to do that if you won’t let them finish their response to the question YOU asked? Keep it down to questions, this is not time to argue. I prefer you address your opponents'caseinstead of addressing them directly.

SPEED

When I'm judging, I don't get to ask you clarification questions in the round like your opponents do, so -- above all else -- prioritize being understood by ME and not just trying to read fast so you have more on the flow. Remember, for me to flow it, I have to be able to listen to and understand what you're going for; prioritize clarity over speed.

Do NOT spread (speed-read). Anything over 300 wpm (look up a video for reference) is "speeding". It's not like I can stop you from speed-reading, but I only flow the things I can listen to AND understand, not just the remnants of things you vaguely enunciated at 10000mph. I don't care if you've disclosed your entire speech verbatim; if you can't read that speech in a way that I can understand without me looking at your disclosed speech doc, you'll have a tough time with the flow.

SPEECHES

Please signpost your arguments! "Signposting" is stating what argument you're responding to before you start responding to it. It helps to organize and understand what you say for both your opponents and the judge.

Cross-examinations: I have always thought CXs were the most important part of any debate round, so listen closely. If you or your opponent say something in VERY stark contrast to your case, that goes on my ballot. Essentially, anything that raises a big red flag goes on the flow. This, however, does not happen often and can be arbitrary since there's no definitive scale for what's considered "in stark contrast" to a case. Thus, your best bet is to mention anything from CX that's of importance in a speech as soon as possible to ensure it gets on my flow.If you ask good questions & are polite here, I typically give high speaks.

STYLE

I'm a mix of Tech and Truth judging. Tech means judging exclusively on what's said in the round; Truth means judging based on how true your args are to the real world. I think any good judge should consider both -- it can prevent debaters from substantiating args that are exceedingly unrealistic but also holds debaters accountable for making realistic args (or at the very least, bringing them up at the appropriate time).

I fact-check any and all "Truths" before I use them in a decision. If it's highly controversial, out of date, or not concrete enough, I just don't use it in voting and default to whatever you told me in the round. In other words, unless you literally have me trembling in utter fear about being nuked to extinction/pandemic'd to oblivion/whatever, I'm probably going to factor in the more realistic impact.

THEORY & Kritiks

Preferably not in PF... Theory/Ks maybe, but it should be topical and relevant by the time you bring it up. I would vote for theories/kritiks if they're outstandingly clear, but I should be shaking in my boots at the mere thought of not voting for your theory/K.No tricks whatsoever-- they're super abusive and I'm not voting on that.

PET PEEVES

Please do not say "Judge, we've won this debate," because you don't know that.

When you are done with your speech, let me know by saying some variation of "we urge a (pro/con) ballot" or some indicator that you are done. Otherwise I might just think you are taking a long pause.

TLDR

Don’t be an abusive jerk and you’ll be fine.