Hello, I am a parent judge in my 5th year of LD judging. My preferences:

1. Please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do not spread. If you speak faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the important parts you want me to flow.

2. Make your argumentation the most important part with clear, concise points. Provide details, evidences and summarize in the end.

All in all be respectful and have fun while debating.

A coach for 40 years, my background is primarily in speech, but I have coached LD and PF debaters. I judge debate a few times a year.

I look for well-constructed arguments and good analysis, supported by solid evidence. The analysis is important; I want to hear the students' evaluation of the evidence, not just a series of citations. I like to see students engage with the resolution and with opposing arguments, clearly addressing assertions and analysis. I will flow the debate and expect to see contentions extended throughout, even if they have been dropped by the opponents. Final focus should provide a concise list of the highlights from the debater's perspective.

I prefer a pace that allows me to easily follow the argument. Speaking skills matter!

Prefers to hear all sides and great if speaks clearly and thanks you and good luck!

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

I am a debate parent in my first year of serving as a judge. I am a partner at a small environmental law firm in Boston. I was a middle and high school History teacher for 7 years before going to law school. I expect debaters to listen to and be directly responsive to the arguments of the other side. I look for each debater to get involved in every aspect of the format, including Grand Cross. I do not need debaters to provide an off-time roadmap previewing what they are going to say during their allotted time. If you believe such a roadmap is important enough to spell out and use as a framework for your comments, you can devote some of your time to it. Debaters can use timing devices during the debate, but they should not use any alarms while tracking their opponents’ time. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I appreciate debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I will deduct points for any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class.

First off, I'm a lay judge - so lucky you! For the debates, I'll be looking for clearly presented logic and well organized arguments along with strong supporting examples referenced by teams. The clarity of your presentations will be important for me, as will the delivery of a position/rebuttal that aims to avoid a heavy use of colloquialisms (e.g. frequent use of the word 'like'). Courtesy is important and I'll be looking for teams to stick to precedented references and/or facts (instead of unsupported opinions) to support both their position and their rebuttals. Maintain cool heads, clear arguments, and composure throughout the debate. Finally, I'll be looking to make sure that teams maintain and reinforce their opening positions and major arguments from their opening cases through to their summaries. For me, the clarity of presentation for the summaries will be just as important as the opening cases. In my opinion, a succinct summary position supported with the most compelling evidence is equally important as the opening.

I am a parent of a high school debater and I have been judging PF at the National and Regional levels for the last five years.

I love the guidance "To what degree will an argument improve the world as holistically as possible given the resolution––humans, environments, economies, etc.?" Using numbers, and sizes of numbers, to make these cases is critically important to my decision-making processes.

I love ethically-collected, fact-based contentions from reputable sources, such as from the gray circle at the top of this curve: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba Think tanks on both ends of the spectrum, particularly those funded by right-wing/Koch money can get a bit sketchy in this context.

And above all else, I expect measured cadence during statements (if I can't understand you, it does you no good!), and a spirit of graciousness during crosses. Points will be taken away for the above misses (particularly if I can't understand what you are saying) as well as any demeaning, sarcastic, or derogatory comments, facial expressions, tone, or evidence. I dislike using debate tribal language in excess and particularly in lieu of content. The "frothing at the mouth preacher style" does not work well with me; I merely ask you to be authentic. Your content should convey the weight of your arguments, not your actions. You will be docked speaking notes for discussions, nodding, or other facial/body expressions while the other team is presenting.

I also delight when humor can be interjected. And smiles are always appreciated.

I will happily share my thought process with teams once the ballots have been entered, while respecting the rules of the specific debate.

This is my fifth year judging PFD. I did not debate in high school or college, so I try to approach PFD as a "citizen judge." When I listen to a debate, I track a lot of factors. The three most important factors are: 1) citing information sources and demonstrating that you performed solid research and know your topic, 2) expressing a clear set of contentions and subpoints, 3) and how well you listen to your opponents and attack their argument.

In terms of delivery, I favor slow or medium pace and clear, well developed arguments.

Finally, it is important that each team respects its opponents. I understand that debates can get exciting, but I do not like to see opponents interrupting or talking over each other too much in crossfire. Good luck today.

I am a parent judge who values common sense, clear logic, and coherence.

1. Arguments shall be clear and well-articulated, even if they do not cover every aspect.

2. If your evidence contradicts your opponent's, convince me with logic. More recent evidence may not be better.

3. As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed as long as you are clear. (However - I'm definitely not used to a policy level of speed so send me a speech doc if you do so). I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous. I default to reasonability.

4. Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 2 mins to find it or send it out. Also, I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card.

5. Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in every speech, and collapse on voters in at least FF, if not summary.

6. Be respectful and let your opponents answer the questions you asked during the crossfire.

I am a lay parent judge but do my best to flow. I do not disclose winners. My modal speaker score is a 28. I have not met a speed limit, but if you find it I will let you know. I find that speed hurts debaters as frequently as it helps, so use it carefully. My career has spanned corporate strategy, public sector policy advisory, higher education and entrepreneurship.

Parent judge and have been judging public forum for a year. Affiliated to Chelmsford High School , MA

Go slow and use lots of warranting

I was a PF debater for 4 years. I also have some experience in Policy.

A few notes:

1. Weigh

Please weigh, it is how you win the round. If you make me weigh, then I have to add my own opinions on the validity of your arguments into the round. Please start weighing before your final focus. Impacting to lives saved is not an automatic trump card, you must tell me why saving lives is more important than your opponent's impacts. Magnitude is not the only way to weigh (no pun intended), so please try to use other methods (I think probability is a very underused weighing mechanism). I vote off of impacts and weighing, not warrants, so please make sure you are consistently flowing your impacts through and make sure you weigh, at the very least in your Final Focus.

2. Clarity

PF debating is meant to be judged by a layperson, please speak at a reasonable speed. While I will understand if you speak in PF speed, but not spreading, I may not have time to write it down and I am more likely to miss something. If it is important to your case, please emphasize it and make sure I know it is important. Please explain your entire case. My dad judged a national tournament with the UNCLOS topic and at the end of the tournament, I asked him what he thought UNCLOS was and he said, "something to do with the South China Sea." Don't assume I know that FDI means Foreign Direct Investment and don't assume that because you quickly defined the acronym once means I'll remember by the end of your case. If your argument is convoluted, please explain it. If your link chain is convoluted, I have no idea whether or not it is reasonable, so I cannot vote for it, so please make sure you clearly explain all your arguments and impacts.

3. Evidence

If your opponent asks for evidence, show them a PDF unless they specifically say they would rather see the card. Please have your evidence organized. While I am not setting a time limit on how long it takes to find your evidence, if you are taking a long time I will ask you to drop the card. If you believe your opponents have misconstrued their card, please bring it up in the round and then ask me to call for the card in Final Focus. Also, just because a card says something doesn't mean it's true, you must explain the warrant— a warranted analytic response is better than an unwarranted card. Note for online tournaments: Please add me to your email chains, but I will not be looking at any of the cards unless a team asks me to until after I have made my decision (I would then look to give feedback for future rounds).

4. Crossfire

I will pay attention to crossfire and take notes to provide feedback, but anything important that comes up in crossfire must be brought back up in one of your speeches or I will disregard it.

5. Frontline

If your team is speaking second, please do the bulk of your frontlining in rebuttal. Your opponents cannot be expected to respond to frontlines in their final focus.

6. Signpost

Please signpost. It makes it easier for me to flow and follow what you are saying, and if I better keep track of your arguments and follow them, then I will be better able to judge your arguments.

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

I think that the main purpose of this activity is being able to persuade an average citizen. So treat me as a lay judge, and avoid debate buzzwords that only make sense to people with PF experience. You can express any of those terms in plainer language that an intelligent adult can follow. I can handle it if you talk fast but for I'll find you more persuasive if you go slower so that your points land more forcefully.

I'm an experienced Policy coach and judge, so in an elite-level debate my decision is going to come down to which side uses their evidence better. Direct quotes from cards are not strictly necessary but will probably be most persuasive.