I am a parent judge and fairly new to judging debate.

General Preferences

Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself and for your opponent.

Please talk slowly and clearly to better help me understand your arguments-Quality over quantity.

I like arguments that are logical and explained clearly. Examples are helpful.

I value cross-examination skills. Being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case can help win the round.

Please be civil towards your opponent. I do not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia...you get the picture.

TL;DR: Flow judge. Speed is fine but please do a lot of weighing in summary and final focus regardless of how quickly you speak. Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm (or otherwise) before the round starts.

Long Version:

In high school, I did Public Forum at Cary Academy on the local, state, and national circuits. Now, I am a Junior at the University of Pennsylvania and I am currently studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics & Criminology. I currently debate for Penn's premier competitive debate team on the APDA circuit (parliamentary) and I compete regularly.

If you want to win, show me the comparative. Try your best to explain why exactly your arguments clash with your opponents' arguments, and why you win on a warrant and weighing level. Teams who clearly explain their frameworks and their weighing mechanisms are more persuasive than teams who assert that their arguments are "winning".

I am a pretty flow judge, and I like to see coverage of all points in rebuttal. However, I'm not going to drop you because you don't address one blippy card in constructive. I'm ok with speed so go as fast as you think is appropriate for Public Forum.

Also, please don't be a dick.

I'm serious. I will hand out really low speaker points if you are condescending or dismissive of any debaters, especially in cross. Don't be afraid to be aggressive or passionate, but please refrain from communicating in a manner that would make others feel unwelcome, as debate is, at its core, a learning experiance that should be available to everyone. I want to discourage bad debate norms, so I will reduce speaks if I feel the need to. Feel free to reach out to me after rounds for feedback or with any other questions.

Build a unique narrative and it’s a dub.

Find the easiest path to the ballot.

I’ve always thought of summary and final focus as an alley-oop. You pass your partner all the cards they need for final focus, and hopefully they slam it home.

Voters at the end would help me a lot, and please extend author names along with the ideas they convey. That will help me flow and communicate RFD better.

I'm a law student and competed in PF for Cary Academy. I have not competed since 2015 and have only judged a couple times since then, so anything overly technical and/or confusing will probably go over my head. In my opinion, PF is valuable for how it helps students develop strong critical thinking skills, learn the ability to dissect arguments, and hone their public speaking abilities. Accordingly, these are the skills I emphasize and look for when I judge, because I think it's what is most helpful to you going forward. I'm happy to answer questions you have on my paradigm if you have any.

Flowing – I will flow, but keep it reasonable. I will write down everything I catch, but clarity is more important than quantity. Make sure you bring your key points through to summary and FF. Typically, my decision will be made on those two speeches.

Cross – I don't write anything down during cross. It matters for speaker points, but make sure you bring up a substantive point in later speeches if you want me to take note of it.

Speaker points – Be clear, professional, and respectful. If your argument makes sense, and you've explained it to me in a compelling way, I'm happy.

Substance – Don't just tell me in summary/FF that you "won" a point, tell me why it's a winning point. Address your opponents' counterpoints. I don't make decisions on quantity—if you bring three points to your FF and your opponent brings two, for example, that's not a clear win. I need to know why those points are the ones that matter.

General points – I'm a big fan of weighing. I think in good rounds, that's what it comes down to: the resolutions are supposed to be complex issues with no clear answer, and your opponent will inevitably make some points that hold water. That's the fun part, and it's more compelling to me if you tell me why your argument is more important. Giving me a framework helps with that.

Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

I value clear communication, speed at a moderate & measured pace & professionalism at all times. Road maps not necessary.

I am a flow judge and will judge strictly on what is argued in the round. I prefer to be told how and why to vote. I want arguments to be made with sound logic and reason. If your evidence is better or should carry more weight, explain to me why that is and make sure I understand

I do not like counter plans outside of a policy debate, so I believe teams should stick to debating the merits of affirming or negating the resolution.

I have no trouble with debaters spreading, but I will say that over video it can be difficult to follow if audio starts to slur and it is near impossible to get the attention of a competitor if I can not understand them. If I missed something because of this, I apologize.

Be respectful and good luck to everyone

Hey everyone! I did Arizona PF for four years, Congress for two, and sprinkles of other events (so yes, I know what a kritik is). I've also judged "full-time" in North Carolina for four years now, mostly PF and LD. I expect a respectful debate from both sides.

For PF, I'm pretty standard. Make sure to spend as much time as possible in your rebuttal speech attacking the opponent's case with specific attacks relating to points they brought up in constructive.

For LD, I'm ok with progressive stuff, but since all my experience is with PF and traditional LD, know that you're taking a risk there. If you do end up going progressive, please be clear as to why I must vote for you! Spreading is fine, but if you're going to talk super fast, please flash drive over your speech so I can follow along.

I vote off the flow, but make sure to weigh impacts in your final speeches - a little bit of narrative (just a little bit!) can go a long way into helping me understanding your side/arguments and voting for you. By narrative, I mean high level analysis of the round, talking about the big picture and not getting too bogged down in the contention level debate (this especially applies to the last few speeches for each side).

My general rule is "quality over quantity." You've probably heard that a billion times, but I truly have trouble understanding quick, one sentence responses to arguments, especially in rebuttal. Take time to develop each response, giving me the context and all of the logic behind it, instead of saying a couple words and expecting me to do the analysis on my own. Also, the more counter-intuitive/non-obvious/unique the point you're trying to make is, the more you have to "gift-wrap" it - I'm willing to listen to almost everything but I need a little more help on arguments that aren't stock/easily understandable. Again, I want to hear the entire logical picture from the debaters, instead of having to fill in gaps on my own. I specifically like listening to how different responses and contentions interact with each other (i.e. grouping after rebuttal speeches). That being said, if an argument is mostly there and is missing just a frivolous part I tend to be pretty sympathetic, but you don't want to rely on this.

For PF - I don't require 2nd speaking rebuttal to defend against responses in 1st speaking rebuttal, but I highly encourage it. I don't require 1st speaking summary to repeat attacks on the opponents case, unless 2nd speaking rebuttal defended their own case against the attacks.

I want to give y'all a virtual high five for still committing to debate during these crazy times and know that it shows amazing character! Now onto a little about myself;

I debated for all four years of high school, and I know that everyone works really hard. That being said, I want each person to be respectful. The main issue with reaching the other side is how it is being presented, which goes further than just a debate round. I don't particularly appreciate spreading, I think you lose the content, and I am no longer focusing on what you have to say. I like more logical debates rather than a stat off.

I was a 4-year high school debater in Public Forum at and currently a debate coach for Cary Academy in NC.

A few things I look for in round:

As a general rule respect all aspects of the debate: be presentable, not overly aggressive, and try not to offend anyone. I generally think cross is useless, but it becomes insufferable if it’s an intelligible, angry mess.

No “progressive” debate: no Ks, spreading, and keep theory to a minimum (although I am flexible on this based on the circumstances).

Frameworks do not have to be explicitly stated in case, I would prefer them to naturally form from the debate and for both sides to agree, or at least do framework analysis, before FF. I think first cross is a great time for the first speakers to engage in a framework debate.

Roadmaps are not necessary, but sign posting is crucial. Be sure to let me know if your responses are targeting towards specific links or impacts, and clarity in the second half of the round goes a long way.

Weighing is more important than extending every card in you case. I would like to see the scope of the debate narrow in summary, for clearer narratives and more weighing. Weighing should start as early as the second rebuttal.

Extensions in FF have to be present in summary, and voters would ideally be clearly articulated.

Bonus speaks to debaters who use quality puns, jokes, humor, etc., in moderation.

Feel free to ask for further preferences/clarifications in round.

Speak well and clearly. Extended stuff, frame the round. Voters are great

Trained first year judge that values a clear and concise communication skillset. Courtesy and respect are required during debates and will be judged accordingly. Crossfire and Grand Crossfire rounds are of particular interest, specifically how teams interact with each other, and provide support. Time keeping is important but not a primary priority as I will let the "flow" of a presenters contention play out within reason of time constraints. Presenting evidence in the forms of links and specific points of topic notes is encouraged.

This is my third year as a parent speech and debate judge. I have been judging public forum during this time. As a judge I need to be convinced that the resolution (con or pro) needs to be adopted.

In addition these are some additional considerations:

1) Manage your time well
2) No new arguments in the final focus
3) Be prepared with material for evidence - do not search for evidence during the debate.
4) Effective communication, logical reasoning and leverage relevant evidence to strengthen your argument

I debated PF at Durham Academy 2010-2014, coached there 2014-2016, and debated British Parliamentary at Duke 2014-2018. I started medical school in 2019.

Since I'm a little out of the game at this point, I probably don't have much knowledge on the topic. While some questions are forever (nuclear deterrence, gun control, etc.), I probably didn't debate this topic, so please make sure that you explain any terms of art. But given my background, I can handle some speed and jargon, but go at your own risk. The faster you go and the more you use jargon, the more likely it is that I don’t understand the full impact of your argument.

I come from a more traditional high school and college debate tradition so I value good engagement, weighing and accessible language. Good engagement means addressing your opponents arguments head-on and grappling with all of their nuance. Weighing is important because if I have to determine which of your arguments matter more or how the various arguments interact, you might not like my interpretation. Accessible language means minimizing jargon - more often than not, using jargon is a lazy way of getting out of actually making an argument (I did plenty of this in my time). For example, explain why your opponent's argument is "non-unique" instead of just saying that it is. While quantifying impacts is almost always helpful and effective, the mechanisms of how an effect comes to be matters a lot too. I will always evaluate whether your logic makes sense and whether your links still stand before I give you credit for your impacts.

Finally, please be respectful to each other. Being rude, abrasive, or condescending will be reflected in your speaker points. I will drop you if you are blatantly and unapologetically homophobic, sexist, racist, classist or any other kind of -ist. Debate must be an inclusive activity for all.

I am happy to answer any other questions that you have before the round begins.

I am a parent judge – my daughter competes in PF.

I have no debate experience, but I will vote for the team that most clearly tells me why they win the round.

If you want me to vote for you, EXPLAIN your arguments. Do not just read evidence and repeat author names/numbers throughout the round. I want to hear your own logical reasoning with the evidence, and how it helps build your narrative/why it takes out your opponent’s points. Also, clearly define terms or concepts that may be unfamiliar to most people.

Have fun and be nice to everyone in round =).