I have over 15 years of experience in the field of education. I taught elementary education for 6 years, have directed several educational programs and am currently an instructor at the University level. I have judged 2 HS tournaments and 4 MS tournaments.

Rewrite 11/5/2020

Please include me in the email chain in policy debates: Alecbellis8@gmail.com.

Experience:

4 years college policy, 2 of those years with national circuit competition. Graduated in spring of 2020.
Read whatever you want and I'll evaluate it. I'm more interested in K's, but I do a lot of policy research for JMU still. I'm up to date on the 2020-2021 Policy topic. Liberty will be my first time judging this year. I've judged before, but not varsity.

Speed

I consider myself a good flow, but top speed (among very fast teams) is probably going to be too much for me. My hearing got fucked up this summer and I'm not sure how that's going to translate to online debates. I will do my best to communicate with you during the debate. I will say clear and slow.

Truth v Tech

Man this is so hard. A conceded argument doesn't make it true, but it does make it truer. A highly true argument still needs to be applied. My goal is to do as little work as possible for you.

Policy vs Policy

*A lot of your affs are blatantly miscut and/or double turns. Don't make me have to drop you for an ethics challenge.

If you want to read 8 off, fine. I don't think that's a good strategy because case debate is cool and more educational but you do you.

Condo is fine but I'll vote on theory if it's good.

More likely to vote on conceded args in these debates than any other.

These debates are boring, so please try to make them less so.

DAs -- I am probably more likely than an average judge to evaluate well warranted analytic arguments. this doesn't mean that you don't have to read carded impact defense, but it does mean that if you point out logical contradictions in their evidence, use historical examples you can get far efficiently. Uniqueness matters, but it is difficult to assess in absolute terms because there are many warrants for why, say, the economy is high low now. If your uniqueness ev kicks ass and you're up on it by a mile then the DA probably doesn't matter, but the direction of the link is more important in debates where uq is contested.

CPs -- Tricky/smart CPs can/should be the fulcrum of a policy based negative strategy. Again, don't change your wheelhouse for me. Textual and functional competition is important. Fake CPs like the states counterplan or ESR are uphill battles and I like theory against them.

T -- underused against policy affs.

Policy AFFs vs K NEGs

I debated 2 ish years of policy arguments, so feel free to run them. I will evaluate them and I still do topic research for JMU, so I'm pretty versed in that side of the 20-21 topic. That being said, my ideological leanings are heavily in favor of the K.

AFF -- I will do my best to be impartial, but I have a big problem with the way that policy affs try to make framework arguments. Arguments about plan focus are nonsensical. If the K doesn't have specific links to the aff, you will probably win -- that isn't a question of framework. Fairness arguments don't make sense because you read your aff and you still get to defend it. They aren't mooting the aff by disagreeing with your scholarhsip. Your framework should be about what education you produce and what my role in the debate is. Am I a policymaker? Ethical decisionmaker? What does that mean for how I approach impacts?

NEG -- You need to outweigh the affirmative's impacts. You can filter them out through a framework that limits what I evaluate, you can have a reject alt, an alt that legitimately solves portions of the aff, etc. Be flexible. I don't have a problem with kicking the alt -- I did that all the time. But you have to preface what that means in the debate. Ie: what does your link and impact mean in the world of the alt/without it?

If you have a reason to distrust their scholarship writ large, that should be articulated in terms of what it means for me as a decisionmaker. Pulling lines from evidence and explaining why their scholarship doesn't match their explanation of the evidence is very persuasive. Let's be real, most policy evidence is imperialist schlock.

Your biggest challenge is probably going to be defeating the util o/w + perm route.

Policy NEGs vs K AFFs

Cruel optimism vs "you're too pessimistic" debates are very tired and largely irresolvable. Both require winning a theory of power.

AFF -- I like topical K's with plan texts and nontopical affs as well. I prefer if the aff is relevant to the topic, but it doesn't have to affirm the topic. I think you are benefitted by clear counterinterpretations rather than tricky we meet arguments. Engaging the state bad is kind of a generic, I would prefer offense about how those debates produce violence for you and why they enshrine bad forms of education. IE: why your starting point is significantly better than the TVA/their model of education.

NEG -- Framework is the easiest argument in debate. You get to read a ~1 minute or less shell and give a 9 minute 2nc. I did this, so I'm not biased against it. That being said, FW offense should be about how the affirmative creates a bad standard for debates, why it hurts their education, why it hurts broader approaches to critical education. Topical versions of the aff and a detailed explanation of both a caselist in your world of debate and what arguments you lose are important. I don't care if you lost your generic CP and DA because if that's all you needed for a policy team then it's probably on you for not spending more time prepping K teams. You need to be able to articulate what engaging strategies you lost.

If your cap K link is that they didn't engage the state hard enough, what distinguishes this from FW? It's not that you can't make cap args, or this style of K. I did this stuff as well, but you should be heavily in the aff's literature base with your examples in links.

K vs K

Both sides will be benefitted by making distinctions between strategy and tactics when necessary.

My opinion has shifted on critical debate somewhat since I graduated. I think I am significantly better versed in antiblackness literature and more sympathetic to it than before. I was a cap debater -- now am less sympathetic to that K being mutually exclusive with antiblackness after reading more Wilderson. I think I was already pretty well versed in settler colonial and indigenous literature, and very well versed in security and cap literature.

Alts in KvK debates are often very squishy, so I think kicking the alt or just reject alts are a better bet for me. The permutation is just so often a devastator here. Something unexplored is what Baylor did last year by framing their alt as diagnostic analysis of the aff. In that world, links are more difficult for the aff to solve.

I am very open to presumption against these affs.

When I judge a debate, I look for the team that is the most prepared and the most convincing. Bonus if you are composed, speak clearly, and are quick on your feet.

· Focus on making a sound, well structured argument – 2 or 3 strong points will go much farther than 5 or 6 weaker arguments

· Avoid acronyms and jargon that are not widely known – if you must use them, clearly define them

· Do not speak over one another – respect your opponents time – this is particularly important during online tournaments

· Speak clearly and at a regular, speaking pace

I am a senior in high school and currently debate for Lincoln-Sudbury (in Massachusetts) and have for the past 4 years.

Crossfire:

I will be paying attention to crossfire, unless I am obligated to write down comments within the ballot. I believe that crossfire is a key part of the debate round, and any concessions and answers to questions will be binding.

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be somewhat sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more.

More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final focus consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interpretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

I require qualifications of sources. Saying Smith 19 doesn't quite do it for me, who is smith and why should i trust his opinion? Oral citations should preferably include Last name, qualification, and the date. If you don't read qualifications, which can be as basic as the website you are citing from, your speaker points won't be over a 28.5

Speed:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing. Additionally, I probably won't hand out anything less than a 25 unless you did something really egregious like being sexist, racist, or extremely rude in any way. That will also most likely give you the loss depending on the situation. A 30 is reserved for some of the best debating I have ever heard for whatever level it is that I am judging so it will take a lot to receive a 30.

Tech vs Truth:

i'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well.

Miscellaneous:

i vote for the status quo on presumption

i will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

i am wholly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.

Speaks - they'll be based on your ability to convince me rhetorically, not necessarily on your strategy. This is still Public Forum Debate, it's the name of the game.

please ask any questions you may have before the round

Feedback:

at the end of the round, i will disclose the result and provide feedback. Ask me any questions about anything and I'll be down to give you whatever answer I can provide. I think providing feedback after round is the most direct way to convey my thoughts to you as debaters, so I'll prioritize that over writing down comments when I need to.

Hi! I am so excited to judge you all. I’m a senior at Newton South High School on the varsity debate team. My wish for everyone is to have fun and learn more about debate and what it's about. Tournaments are the best part of debate! Here are just a few things I'm looking for:

1. Explaining your warranting (reasoning, logic) of a point is super important. We don't know your case as well as you do.

2. Weigh! Tell me why your impact is better than their impact. That way I don't have to make my own subjective comparison.

3. Please signpost (keep track/say where you are in speeches) and try not to jump around too often. It helps you, too!

4. Anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. will not be tolerated at all. I will immediately decide to drop you.

5. If anything super important happens in cross, bring it up in one of your speeches because I'm not 100% focused on cross and might miss it.

Good luck and have fun:)

Debated PF for 4 years in high school, graduated 2018. Some points:

1. Talk at a reasonable speed, I can flow fast but PF is, at the end of the day, for the average person.

2. I prefer a clear logic chain - no impacts without proper warranting and logic behind them

3. Love weighing

This is just what I prefer, feel free to do whatever you want, I'll keep up.

I am a parent of a high school debater and have been judging PF for 2 years. I grew up in SIngapore debating, parliamentary style debates. My judging ethos is fairly straightforward:

- i suspend my opinions and what i know about a topic outside the room and come in as a blank canvas. My role is NOT to be an expert, but to be an objective and neutral civilian, being exposed to arguments, fresh, in each round.

- i strongly prefer civilized, thoughtful and persuasive debate. I will credit professionalism, civility and a good sense of humor.

- i will discredit rudeness of all kinds. I do not enjoy theatrics (such as actively eye rolling toward me when your opponent is speaking - it will work against you, not for you), nor do i value those who simply railroad and speak loudly and fast over others in cross. Debate requires active listening to one another which is not possible if you won’t listen to your opponent or let them finish what they are saying. Please avoid all theatrics and distraction techniques.

- i will consider unanswered arguments as defeated; and will not credit (may even take point away) for new arguments introduced late in the game. And please stick to the truth and actual facts, not fake facts.

- volume and speed are not what i value. So yelling loudly or jamming numerous arguments extremely quickly and tripping over your words do not impress me. I value a debater who is confident enough to stay focused and rely on the strength of their research their ability to nuance and react thoughtfully and speak at a reasonable volume and pace. And be civil to their peers across the table.

I was a pretty good high school debater (Policy). But that was 30+ years ago!

I've gotten back into debate via judging, starting in 2019. Since then I've judged ~ 5 PF tournaments. I'm still a bit rusty with my flowing abilities, but I'm getting there. So, I'm not a citizen lay judge, but I'm also not ready to judge the final round at Nationals.

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

Debate history: 1 year in NLD, 2 years in VPF

Things I look for in speaking: Debaters speak clearly and stay organized on the flow.

What a good debate will look like to me: Extension of arguments, weighing and voters, attacking the opponent's actual argument (not solely the evidence), and presenting all information clearly while making cogent and relevant arguments. The latter is especially important because in order to be a fair judge, I cannot use background knowledge to analyze the validity of arguments, only what I hear in the round.

If any debaters reading this have clarifying questions, I am always happy to answer any questions before the round, assuming time permits!

I’m a parent judge and I am relatively new at this.

Here are a few of my preferences:

1) Speak slowly. I’m only judging you based on what I hear. The faster you speak the less likely I am to hear and understand your arguments. Again, please speak slowly.

2) Extend and explain. Extend all of your points that you want me to evaluate and explain everything to me. Don’t assume that I have any background knowledge on this topic.

3) Evidence isn’t that important to me. I’m not going to vote for you because of your evidence if you don’t communicate why it’s significant.

4) I am going to try to be tech over truth. If an argument doesn’t follow basic logic I won't vote for it, but other than that I'll believe what you tell me.

5)Be kind.

Good luck to everyone and I look forward to a good, clean debate.

I am a parent judge aligned with Regis High School in New York City. I have been judging debate for several years at some of the larger regional tournaments, states, and local tournaments, judging mainly Public Forum, rounded out with a BQ qualifier and BQ nationals. Parliamentary Debate is a new format for me.

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

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

I will vote off the flow.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging PF for the past 3 years. I debated LD in high school many years ago. I prefer students to speak at a reasonable pace and not race through their individual speeches. I expect all students to respect their opponents and not make derisive remarks about arguments. When you ask a question allow your opponent to respond. Obviously, I prefer when arguments are addressed at least at some level rather than just ignored. I am often more persuaded by the logic of an argument rather than just counting pieces of evidence.

First time judge.

Please speak slowly.

I am a lay parent judge, and I prefer more traditional debates. I am pretty familiar with the topic.

I like debaters who are organized and have well-warranted arguments. Please make sure your arguments make logical sense. I also like debaters who take advantage of their prep time; don't stop speaking with a significant amount of time left.

I am not very familiar with more tech debate with kritiks, theory, etc, but I will still evaluate it but make sure you are overexplaining everything if you do read those. I am also not very good at evaluating spreading, and make sure you are clear in your speech.

Please email me the cases at jianhuny@gmail.com

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

I am a 4 year PF debater at Manchester-Essex Regional High School. I have debated LD but have limited experience with it. I value clear and slow presentation of evidence and arguments.

If you spread a lot, I will try my best to keep up with you, but at anything faster than 200 wpm I will probably miss points in my flow and anything above 225 wpm will cause me to miss significant chunks of your argument.

Please, please, please do not drop evidence without any warrants or logic.

If an opponent makes a point and you are the first speaking team, you have until the end of the next round to address it (not in cross). If you are the second speaking team, you can address it in your next speech or leave it to the next round (ie address T1 rebuttal in your rebuttal or in summary). Anything dropped will be considered true for the whole debate as long as it is extended correctly through each round, but anything dropped and unextended will be a wash. Do not bring up dropped points that you didn't extend, I am not going to weigh them so you are just wasting your time.

Make voters clear in FF

Don't waste time on contentions of little significance in later speeches.

PLEASE SIGNPOST FREQUENTLY. I won't make a decision based on signposting frequency, but I will find it much harder to follow your argument if you don't signpost. I will also mark you down in speaks if you don't signpost.

Safest way to save your speaks is to not be condescending. However, if you are condescending and you are funny, I won't take off points. If you are just being an asshole though, I will definitely take off points.

**If there are conflicting pieces of evidence presented in the round, I will buy the evidence that has the most logical explanation accompanying it. It is not enough to tell me that some expert said something, you have to explain logically why that thing will happen/has happened.

Hi I'm Enya! I debated for 4 years at Newton South, mostly on the nat circuit. I'm a few years out.

Add me to the email chain - enya@kamadolli.com (this is solely for convenience in case y'all ask me to look at evidence, I'm almost never looking at evidence unless a team asks me to)

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Please introduce yourselves w/ pronouns

---- For Novices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are amazing and we are all here to learn so please don't be stressed or nervous and try to have fun :)

2) Weighing is the easiest way that you can get me to vote for you. Please make it comparative though. Also please remember to also extend a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus (and it should be the same warrant and impact).

3) I don't vote off cross. Obviously I'll pay attention and give you feedback as to what were strategic questions, etc, but nothing you say in cross will be written down by me. That means that you should focus on asking about things that will help you out, not asking about things and saying things that should probably be in a speech.

4) Please please please collapse on just one or two arguments. I do not evaluate rounds by counting. I will only vote for something if there is a warrant and impact and ideally weighing. If you extend three contentions in summary/final focus, you have to do this for each contention.

(If you don't understand any of the things above or below, please ask. Also if at any point during round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, please ask)

---- General things-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***if you say anything or act in any way that is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, egregiously elitist, islamophobic, etc, I will drop you and likely report you to tab***

1) Tech > Truth. Keep in mind that if you lose the flow, you will lose the round.

2) I require the frontlining of all offense in 2nd rebuttal. That means turns AND weighing. If those are not addressed, I consider them conceded in the round. You might want to frontline some other stuff too. That’s up to you :)

3) Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO.

4) Please use they/them pronouns with anyone that you don’t know the pronouns of

5) Everyone gets a 10 second grace period. Please do not start anything new during the grace period. However, certainly DO NOT interrupt your opponents, raise your hand/fist, or do anything else disruptive during that 10 second period. I frown upon this practice even after the 10 second period, given that I am also timing the speech and I will put my pen down after the 10 second period, so there's no need to frantically wave your timer at me.

6) the Zoom/NSDA platform technology picks up deeper voices. That essentially means that if a person with a deeper voice and a person with a higher voice are talking at the same time, only the person with the deeper voice will be heard. Please be aware of this and adjust your behavior in cross accordingly!!! If you are a person with a deep voice who ~literally~ does not let anyone else get a word in and/or interrupts others, expect a 26.

7) Feel free to ask me questions about my decision. If you have any questions about how I evaluated any specific argument/weighing, I encourage you to ask them if my RFD didn't make it clear enough. I'll most likely give an oral RFD unless the round runs really late, but if for some reason I don't, feel free to email me with questions once you get my RFD.

8) I'm willing to entertain progressive argumentation if you explain it well and you aren't running it against novices or teams that clearly don't know how it works. I'm quite open to kritiks, but please keep in mind that I don't have a ton of experience with them, so keep them accessible. Any sort of minority advocacy argument will be well-recieved by me. I'm not a huge fan of disclosure and paraphrase theory, but if it's on my flow I'll evaluate it.

---- Things that’ll boost your speaks -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giving your opponents prep time if they use all of theirs up (+1)

Collapsing in second rebuttal (+1)

Rebuttal weighing overview (+0.5)

Having some good weighing mechanism that I’ve not encountered yet on a topic (+0.25)

I am a senior, captain, and debater at LS. I have been doing debate for 4 years, and judge rounds in our school.

I do flow but appreciate reasonably paced speaking.

Here are a few of my preferences:

- If there is an evidence debate, I would appreciate seeing the evidence. Sources are useful and necessary for your argument, BUT you can not just tell me that an article says something without explaining the context or the rationale behind it; I will always prefer contextualized evidence. I am also appreciative of historical president and sound logical assessments, especially as rebuttals.

- For me, it is really important that you interact with the other side's arguments. You should not just be repeating your own case.

- Please signpost, especially in rebuttal (tell me what argument your are responding to, or defending).

- I am open to Ks and interesting frameworks, but if you do not propose a framework, I will just default to the side that saves the most lives.

- Weighing is important in summary and crucial in final focus.

- I do not flow grand cross. I do pay some attention to crossfires: I will not flow it, but it can help to clarify arguments.

- You can not bring up evidence or a brand new argument later than 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary. At the VERY latest 2nd summary (but this is not preferred).

- If you drop arguments as the round progresses, that is 100% ok (please do not hesitate)! The earlier on in the round you drop the argument the better so that you can each discuss and engage in interesting debate about the specific topics, without getting spread-thin.

- Please time yourself :)

- Do not be mean! If you are rude, laugh at the other team, or are disingenuous with your evidence, I will take off significant speaker points. Please do chat with the other side, crack jokes, or lighten the mood :)

Even if you are feeling lost in the argument-- keep trying! If you have any questions, let me know. Good luck!

I'm a 4 year PF debater from Sharon High School in Massachusetts with a moderate amount of experience on the national circuit.

tech>truth.

Don't do prog

General:

I time all speeches, and won’t flow anything off time. I won’t stop you, though, unless you are like 30 seconds over.

Time yourself and don’t make me stop you. I do not time prep, so time it yourself.

I won't intervene on evidence, unless you specifically ask me to look at a piece of evidence you believe your opponent is misconstruing.

Tell me when you start. I don’t want to be setting up my flow and all of a sudden you start talking before I can get my timer set.

Cases:

I don’t mind speed, but please make sure your opponent is okay with it, and if they ask you to slow down, then slow down.

HAVE A WARRANT. If you just give a me a card, I really don’t care. I shouldn’t vote for you because Johnson ’19 says something cool. You need to tell me why I should buy the argument, and the card should be backing up the argument.

Crossfire:

I do not flow crossfire. I use that time mostly to craft feedback and think about the round as it pertains to the flow. However, I will still pay attention to what is said. Make sure that if your opponents concede something in cross, you mention it in another speech.

Rebuttal:

I will always prefer strong logic over a mediocre card. If their card doesn’t make sense, tell me that and tell me why.

For second rebuttal, frontlining will make me very happy, but I do not require it.

Summary:

Give me an order for your speech. It can be as simple as “down their case, then our C2”.

Defense is not sticky, so if you have a good piece of defense, extend it.

Don't go for all of your arguments. Collapse on something.

PLEASE WEIGH. It will make the round so much easier for me to evaluate and most often, the team that weighs better wins. But don’t just say “we outweigh on probability”. Tell me why your argument is more likely to happen, etc.

FF:

This speech should mimic summary. Extend offense, interact with their defense and tell me why it doesn’t apply. Extend defense and tell me why it takes out their case. Then weigh. And make sure that you use the same weighing mechanisms as in summary.

Presumption:

I think PF has a lot of rly rude and aggressive debaters, and I decided I'm going to punish that by defaulting to the nicer team in the event of a tie, if nobody was rude; then I default to the team that lost the flip unless a presumption argument is made. If all you say is "default to us because I didn't get to have breakfast this morning" or "default to us because we are from a western time zone and had to get up earlier" and the opponents say nothing, I default to you. If both teams make a presumption argument, I will evaluate both.

Speaks:

I evaluate speaks on how prepared you seem. In crossfire, if your opponent presses hard on a certain argument and you demonstrate a high level of understanding of you own case and how it operates, I will give you higher speaks. If you are clear and confident in your rebuttal, displaying a high level of understanding of you’re responses and how their interact with the opponents case, I will give you higher speaks.

In terms of the actual numbers, they operate on a sliding scale based on how you performed in comparison to the other people in the round. I will rarely give lower than a 27.5 and will only give a 30 if you blow me out of the water.

Also if you are able to sneak in at least 2 lines from Kanye West’s first verse on Runaway, I will give u a 1 point boost at minimum. If it flows well, I will give you a 30.

Also if you appropriately use the Bruh #2 sound effect in round at the right time, I will boost your speaks.

-I will flow. I appreciate a clear narrative across arguments! It's okay to collapse.

-Significant impacts are awesome, especially quantifiable ones! Explain the gravity of the situation!

-Signposting is always really helpful.

-Spreading is okay, but make sure we can actually understand you. Don't speak super fast against an obviously less experienced team (this helps no one!)

-Don't be rude in cross-ex, especially don't be patronizing or condescending toward female debaters

-If evidence is requested, please pull it up quickly for the other team

-If you're running complex theory, please break it down and explain it.

- Hi - I'm a parent volunteer, and this is the first time I've judged PF Debate.

- I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video. I've also judged similar team debate formats, but not PF Debate.

- Please speak clearly, and forgive me if I don't know all the rules! I'll do my best to keep everything moving in the right order and on time.

September/October in LD: If you refer to Africa as a country or participate in creating an ideology that the entire African continent is homogenous, I will decrease your speaker points. Please avoid preaching false stereotypes about other nations/groups of nations or making assertations about a country's access to resources or economic status without knowledge or evidence.

Hi, I am Triniti.

Simpson College (Studying Global Management & Political Science)

Public Forum Coach at Valley High School

Contact: TrinitiKrauss@gmail.com

I am on the Simpson College Debate team and have competed at the collegiate level in Parli, PF, and LD. I graduated high school in 2018 and since then, I've judged many debate tournaments, primarily LD and PF. In high school, I competed in WSD, PF, and LD, and Congressional Debate.

The Short Version: Run anything you want. Know what you are running. Explain and develop your arguments well. Interact with your opponent (pretty please). Don't be a jerk. Favorite debate to watch for LD: LARP. Favorite PF judge to watch: One where people know what they are talking about.

What I LOVE to see:

- Clash. Clash. Clash. Did I forget to mention clash?

- Impacts. Love ‘em.

-Tell me why I should prefer your warrants, impacts, and sources over your opponents.

- Tell me how I should weigh the round.

- Links - crazy right? I want to see the 'how' we get from the resolution to your case to your impacts.

LD Specific Paradigm:

If I have a trad Debater against a non-trad debater: Debate jargon is less important than responding to every component of your opponent's case. Example: If your opponent says "do both" instead of "perm," respond to the argument because I will still evaluate "do both."

Case Style: Run anything as long as you can run it well.

T: Go for it. I want to see a developed T-shell and I will vote on T. However, using T as a strat to time-suck is annoying. Because I think that it is annoying, I am happy to vote on an RVI. I would prefer that T be used when there is a very clear violation.

Theory: I’ll buy a well-developed theory shell.

Tricks: Not my favorite.

Kritikal Debate: Have fun. Show relevance/link to resolution.

LARP/CPs/DAs: Love it. Probs my favorite. Just make sure your links/impacts are there.

Speaking: Just speak clearly. Slow down when you read tags/authors of cards, please.

FOR THE LOVE - know what you are talking about - as in, understand the arguments that you are making.

Just don't be a jerk.

I am a parent judge and have been judging PF for a year now. I like to hear arguments that are clear and logical and relate directly to the topic. Just a few well articulated points will go long way in making the case for your side. I'd say that I prefer moderate speed but ok if you have to go a bit faster to make all your points.

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 public forum rounds, it is only more recently 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 am a PFer for Lexington High School in MA.

I suck at flowing so you should take into consideration that

a) You should be signposting

b) I'm a horrible judge

c) I'm tech over truth.

Teams should time the other teams' prep (and speech) time as well as their own.

I'll give you 0.1 extra speaker points if you do all of these 3 things after every single speech:

- Dab

- Whip

- Nae-Nae

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

Also some preferences:

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

2. Don't yell during crossfire

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

I am a parent judge and do well with slow to moderate talking speed during debate rounds. If you want to get my ballot, you should make sure that you're talking slow enough for me to pick up everything you're saying.

Things to do:

- moderate to slow talking speed

- being respectful in round

- well organized arguments

- weighing

Things to not do:

- reading a new contention in rebuttal

- new evidence after first summary

- disrespectful or overly aggressive teams during cross

- kritiks or theory arguments just because I don't have sufficient experience with them and as a result have a low threshold for a good response

- taking an unnecessarily long time to find cards once called

Good luck!

I am an occasional debate judge and a parent of Concord-Carlisle students in the classes of '24 and '27.

I am your average flow judge. Please be clear and speak at a reasonable pace. I think it's a good idea to focus on reading and explaining a few arguments instead of dumping a lot of unwarranted arguments. If you make a JJBA reference I might bump up your speaks a bit :)

Email: cm3054@princeton.edu if you need it for any reason, I prefer docs to email chains but up to you, I like to be shared on the evidence.

TL;DR: Ex-PF debater currently a sophomore at Princeton. Don't spread, for the love of all things debate signpost, weigh WELL, I won't flow after time for speech is up. I'm not well-versed in theory or K's; you're welcome to run it but I can't guarantee I'll understand it. Won't drop you for misconstrued ev but I won't consider it in my eval of the round.

Me: I'm a current Princeton student and ex-debater with 4 years of PF experience. I went to several National Circuit tournaments and won a few local ones. As I was a flow debater, I would consider myself a flow judge; I'm not necessarily up to date on what has happened in the world of PF in the past ~3 years.

Timing: Since I'm judging varsity, please time yourselves. If your opponent is over time, that's up to you to call them out.

Speed: Speak as fast as you would like as long as you aren't spreading. Take that to LD or some other form of debate where spreading is welcome. I'll accept a speech doc if you want to spread, but if you spread without one I'll dock your speaks significantly.

Theory/Kritiks: I am not well-versed in either (again, I haven't been in the PF space in years). I'm decently familiar with disclosure theory but in all honesty I find it somewhat idiotic and get bored listening to rounds entirely on this topic. You're welcome to argue it though. Assume I don't know theory jargon/terms so please make sure to briefly explain them. I can't guarantee I will understand how to incorporate theory and/or K's into my evaluation of the round but run it at your own risk. I really dislike theory run against opponents who aren't familiar with it - imo that's mean and an abusive way to pick up wins, I'll likely drop you if you do this. I'm generally not a fan and think this stuff belongs in other forms of debate unless you are genuinely trying to change the debate space and not just trying to use it to win.

Signposting: Hopefully the following reminder should only apply to novices - PLEASE SIGNPOST! (AKA, "In my opponents' contention 1, [tagline], they say xyz. In response, we say zyx.") In the words of my favorite debater, Dorothea Newman, signpost so much that I feel like I'm driving in a construction zone. My biggest pet peeve is not signposting. I also appreciate numbered responses and if you do this I'll give you decently high speaks; it just makes my flows pretty. I will subtract -1 speaks if you fail to ever signpost in the round.

Weighing: Make sure to do a good job weighing, I would rather vote off of who does a better job weighing than my own personal view of impacts. Additionally - you can't just say "we win off of probability and magnitude (insert other weighing buzzwords)", you must tell me why your argument is more probable/has a greater magnitude. Metaweighing is great.

Reasons for drops: I can and will drop you if you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Xoxo. Maybe if you run really abusive theory against opponents who are not familiar with theory.

Misconstrued evidence: As disclosure becomes more common within debate, we're seeing less of this, but that being said I won't drop a team for misconstrued evidence, but I will consider that piece of evidence null if it's sufficiently proven to be misconstrued.

Extra: Make the debate interesting!!

Good luck and please don't postround me. I'm just a tired college student. You'll live. Also more than happy to email you a picture of my annotated flows if you don't find the RFD sufficient.

I am a lay parent judge and have been judging LD for the past two years. I prefer a slower debate style, so I can grasp all the arguments that are important to you. It is up to you to speak clearly and persuade me on your viewpoint. I will outline the important arguments of each debater's case and take notes throughout the round.

I usually choose the winner based on three factors:

1. Most articulate

2. Who won the most arguments in the round

3. Remains respectable throughout the debate to their opponent

I also enjoy a great cross-examination round and the ability for debaters to think on their feet.

In the end just have a good time and I enjoying watching debaters in their element!

I used to be a LDer for 3 years while in high school. However, I have not done much speech-type work since then except for judging for JVPF in 2021 and judging speech in Oct 2022. I can follow probably up to JV-level arguments and speed, however I advise not spreading even if you're willing to provide the doc.

I'm specifically looking at main tags/arguments, important sources and their connections to the main tags, main counterpoints to your opponent's arguments, and if you actually analyze your source in a way that shows proper justifications for your side.

I'll disclose the standings, and unless there's no time, I'll try to add a little feedback at the end as well as proper feedback in the comments and RFD.

Couple of things that are really appreciated:

1. Signpost. It's really important to both have a good crossfire as well as make sure I know the main point of the argument and can then link it to the supporting information. Make sure to clearly state at least the names of sources so I can make an indicator for it.
2. Be clear. An argument is only as good as what I get from it. Even if you mention multiple parts, if your opponent adequately responds to what I think the argument's main purpose is then I'm more likely considering the whole argument contested. Of course if it's higher level with sending the doc this is less important, but still really helpful for me to make sense of what the core values your case is trying to get across.
3. Be respectful. This is an environment where we try and responsibly debate and try to both win and learn. Properly answering questions(a little nuance is fine but not too much), don't interrupt your opponent, and try to be as civil as possible.
4. Obligatory have fun! since this is a pretty stressful environment unless you're THAT confident. Make sure to listen properly and write notes so that your next round may be a little better each time.

I have three years of debate experience in mostly PF and a little bit of LD.

TLDR: I'm a flay judge. Talk slowly, explain your arguments well, don't be mean.

Theory

- I know the smallest possible amount about theory/progressive arguments but I'm willing to vote on them if they're explained well and not frivolous.

- If you're going to run theory in PF, check with your opponents before the round begins. I come from a small school so I do not like when theory is used as a way to get one up on a debaters that don't have access to training on those arguments.

- You can check abuse without running fancy theory! If your opponent is doing something harmful SAY SOMETHING. My tolerance for misogyny/racism/homophobia/etc is very low.

Speaks

- Generally be polite. I like pleases and thank yous and wholesome small talk.

- I have a VERY short attention span so I like roadmaps, game plans, sign posting, etc. Make this easy for me please.

- I like to laugh! Make (respectful) jokes and tik Tok references.

General

- If you're going to read an argument that references triggering topics (sexual assault, gun violence, suicide, etc), you need to issue a content warning at the top of the round and allow your opponent to opt out if they want to. This can be as simple as a quick "hi just so you know, I'm going to be referencing sexual assault at the top of my second contention. Is that ok with everyone?" If you don't have an alternate case I'm ok with everyone switching side/speaking order to accommodate.

- If you're going to refer to me/ask me anything plz call me Abi. Calling me "judge" is just very uncomfortable.

- Please have fun! My favorite rounds are when I can tell all the debaters in the round are enjoying themselves and want to be there. If you’re miserable debating a round, I’m probably miserable judging it.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision I will ask for it. I care about logic and the strength of link chains. The quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate. A dropped argument will not hold. The speed arguments are delivered is only an issue when words become garbled and unintelligible. Thus, be very careful spreading if you chose that method. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you. It is easier for me to follow a debate when I can see the debaters. Have fun and respect the art of debate!

I debated Public Forum for Edgemont Debate for five years.

My biggest pet peeve is when debaters say they are going to weigh and then don't give a comparative analysis. The point of weighing is to give me a couple sentences I can put on my RFD and vote off of. Please don't give me blanket statements such as we win on magnitude, that doesn't do anything for me. Tell me why your higher magnitude impact matters more than their higher scope impact.

Warrant. Please. Cards without warrants don't mean anything, and every argument does not need a card. I am much more likely to buy an argument with logical warranting than a card that just gives me a statistic.

Collapsing is good. Winning more offense doesn't make you more likely to win the round. I'll be much happier if I get one piece of offense with great warranting and weighing as opposed to getting three impacts and four turns with minimal warranting and rushed weighing.

I'm good with speed so long as you are articulate. If you mumble or slur your words while going really fast I will most likely end up flowing something wrong. That's on you.

I base my speaks predominately on how strategically affective your speeches were (how the speech helps you win the round/did you flow through ink etc). If you win the round for your team in rebuttal I'm giving you a 30.

I reserve the right to drop speaker points, or drop your team entirely, based off of any unsportsmanlike conduct. This includes, but is not limited to, misconstruing evidence and offensive behavior. Just be nice people.

For LD:

I have debated exactly 0 LD rounds, so please keep that in mind. I get the basics of LD and I have judged a few rounds, but if you are running something nuanced that you think I might not grasp, I'd rather you over explain it than under explain it.

don't be an ass lol

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Communications Department Chair at American Heritage Schools Palm Beach Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Declamation State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, GMU Congress Champion, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes, NSDA district champions. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He has been the director of public forum at Georgetown as well as teaching and directing programs in Business, Stem, and Debate for Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore, American University Washington DC, Yale University, Babson College, Dartmouth College, The Hun School. He is currently the PBMSFL Treasurer and serves on the congress TOC advisory committee.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND (Obviously in person debate) This was posted BEFORE Covid and still applies now.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population? I have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Traditional questioning is one question one person, it should not be called indirect questioning.... Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round. Can we please put an end to frowning chairs? Congress does not have an equal number of speeches for or against a piece of legislation so why should we. It is natural that one side will have more than the other. So stop frowning. If you cannot extend, refute, or produce new arguments, then don't rehash, vote to move on to the next legislation and speak early on that. EVERYONE SHOULD BE PREPARED ON BOTH SIDES. Then strategically you should choose which side will benefit you the best and speak on that side.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing. I also rank as I go so there is no advantage or disadvantage to your speaking order.

ONLINE SPEECH AND DEBATE - At first, I had enjoyed moving to online speech and debate. I was involved in rules development, ideas for communicating online and framing ideas. I worked all summer with online speech and debate and so understand glitching etc but you also need to make sure no other devices in your home are on and that your framing doesn't include anything moving, like a ceiling fan, as they will detract from the strength of your signal. FOR DEBATE EVENTS, I prefer that you present your speech seated. I think in person standing is fine, but when you stand online we often lose facial expression, gestures are hard to see, walking off camera isn't good, and your voice may drop off. FOR SPEECH EVENTS-For many, ok, most, events you must stand and that is perfectly fine. Have fun and enjoy that we are still able to keep our activity vibrant and growing. 2022 Update - I am tired of being online and I am crossing fingers we will soon return to in person speech and debate. I AM IN FAVOR of students who are finding creative ways to perform online and I am not in favor or adults making new online rules that limit creativity. (Ex: Moving toward or away from the camera for emphasis)

If someone wants to start an email chain pre-round, use this email: Senghas.Jacob@gmail.com

Debate Coach for Wayland High School, 2019-Present.

Debate Coach for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2017-18.

Former Extemp speaker and PF/Congressional Debater with Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2008-2012:

MA HS State Championships 2012, Congressional Debate, 6th Place.

2012 Harvard Semi-Finalist.

Collegiate debater for the University of Vermont in the British Parliamentary/WUDC format, 2012-2016:

Binghamton IV 2012, Octofinalist, Top Novice Speaker;

Vienna IV 2014, Finalist;

Ljubljana IV 2014, Semi-finalist;

Pan-American Championship 2014, 2nd place;

Northeast Regional Championship 2014, Semi-finalist;

Northeast Regional Championship 2015, Finalist;

Brandeis IV 2015, Semi-finalist;

Empire Debates 2015, Semi-Finalist;

Malaysia WUDC World Championships 2015, Finished in the top 10% of teams but didn't break, took a round from a world finalist (not an achievement but I'm proud of it so it's going here);

National Championships 2016, Octofinalist;

Winner of countless irrelevant speaker awards.

I am new to judging. I will look for believable arguments and clear communication. Please present specific and current evidence if possible.

Michael Siller Paradigm

About Me: I am a parent judge on behalf of the Bronx High School of Science. I am not a "technical" judge. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.

Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:

(i) Please identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.

(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly, focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.

(iii) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible in a meaningful way.

(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.

"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged and scored on how they address the assigned topic.

Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise, professionalism, and ability to think on your feet). Concerning thinking on your feet, I pay particular attention to how well you comport yourself in cross-fire.

For purposes of sharing evidence, my email is mbsiller1@gmail.com

I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!

I debate for ridge- I do PF right now, have done Policy and LD in past.

flow judge.

i have copied this from my friend Rajan Gupta:

"Never re-gift to someone who knows the original gifter. It's incredibly uncomfortable to get busted ditching something that was clearly meant for you, whether it's an ugly sweater, or, worse case scenario, an engagement ring."

- John Oliver

About Me:

i did pf for all 4 years of high school. i'm a junior in college atm and i've been coaching around since i graduated.

The Basics:

1. i'm tech over truth
2. i try to minimize intervention; if i have to intervene because nobody weighed, i default to strength of link
3. i'm fine with most speed, but if you're gonna spread please add me to the email chain: (amansinghdallas.03@gmail.com)
4. all offense has to be in summary and final focus; extend the warrant, not just the tag
5. first summary doesn't have to extend defense (unless it was frontlined in second rebuttal), second summary does
6. i don't flow cx, so anything relevant should be mentioned in the next speech
6. don't read progressive arguments; i think they're good for pf but i'm not good at evaluating them
7. signpost constantly, it makes my life easier and helps me give you a better rfd at the end of the round
8. i'll generally call for evidence if you tell me to or if i think it's sketchy
8. i don't care too much about "debate attire", wear whatever you're comfortable in

if you have any other questions, just ask before the round starts

me again:

I like food, I also like jokes, allow that to influence how you debate

my rfd will be oral

Hello, I am Heather Spencer, I am a new parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

I started judging this year (2021). I prefer for debaters to speak at a speed that they would use in normal conversation.

I am a parent judge. While I have only had limited experience judging tournaments, I do have a bit of a paradigm

1. I prefer clarity over speed. Better to have a few well reasoned arguments than a series of half baked ones.

2. Be cognizant of the time

3. No ad hominem attacks. Be respectful.

Good Day,

I am a novice Judge and speaking in lay terms would appreciated.

We are currently receiving significant amounts of heavy snow. I would be surprised if my power or internet survive the next few hours.

Have fun!

Judge Justin

Hello debaters. To let you know, I only have judged a few HS PF debates before. Therefore, I would like to ask for you to speak at a regular pace. The faster you speak, the less of a chance I write your arguments on the flow. Anything I dont hear, I will probably not count to the round.

Here are a few preferences of mine:

1) Please signpost. This will make it much easier for me to understand the round, and will have a beneficial impact on your speaker points

2) Dont be mean or abusive in crossfire and be courteous when talking one another. Your points will be affected by your behaviour, and I could possibly drop you because of this behaviour.

3) I value warranting over a bunch of cards. Please explain why your argument is true and dont just tell me that so and so said it. Your link chain is important

4) I prefer you to collpase on 1 argument. When you collapse, it allows me to understand why you're winning more clearly.

5) In the end, the winner of the debate will be decided by who has the most cohesive and supported argument

6) This is something I realized very recently, but I tend to not like high magnitude impacts with low probability, so please steer away from arguments like that

Be Polite and respectful.

Do your homework, be prepared to send the evidence to support your statement.

Don't speak too fast.

Bullet points are helpful.

Don't use much debate jargon.

Have fun and good luck.

Hi - I am a parent judge who has judged five prior debate tournaments. I did not participate in debate in high school. Please speak clearly and not too fast, so I can follow your arguments and supporting evidence. Sometimes less is more. I understand some debate lingo but using less in your speeches will be better for me. Thanks and I look forward to your debates!

While this is my first year judging, feel free to speak at whatever speed you want. Just know that I value quality over quantity. In addition, I believe that active listening is a core skill. So, I encourage you to extend your arguments and tailor your questions based on your opponent's specific presentations.

Finally, always be respectful of your opponents and treat everybody as they want to be treated.

Good luck!

Hi I am a parent, and I do not have much experience. Here’s some advice from my daughter.

1. She’s your generic parent/lay judge, so keep the speed low and don’t use debate jargon.

2. My mom is a very logical person, so explain all claims and numbers because otherwise they’re just random statements that she has no reason to believe.

3. Be polite to each other (including your partner) even if you think they’re outrageously wrong. Yelling at them will not get you anywhere and it makes her dislike you more.

Please just be respectful and appreciative in general, she really tries her best to fairly judge the round!

*seating: Pro on her left side, Con on the right and please have the first speaker of each team seated closer to her, this will help in organization and to ensure you get the correct comments.

I am a parent PF judge with several semesters' judging experiences. I usually do my best to set aside my personal opinions or believes on the topic and try to be neutral and fair to both team, no matter which side you pick. What I look for are how well the preparation on both evidences/facts and presentations, effective arguments etc. I would take time count into consideration (don't go over the limit!). I am not a native English speaker, but have pretty good English, so slow down the speech and present clearly may help. Because I am a parent judge, please avoid anything weird or innovative, most likely I cannot get them.

I am a parent judge, please be clear and speak slowly for me!

she/her

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

a couple of things:

- please preflow before round

- go at a slow/normal speed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- bonus tbd