Hi my name is Gideon Argov. I am a lay judge, but have experience judging and conducting public speaking in other contexts. Feel free to proceed at your preferred pace, but make sure you speak in complete sentences and are understandable/intelligible, and most importantly that you treat other debaters with respect. Good luck!

hi! am deb8er @ acton in my third year of pf on the nAtiOnaL ciRcUit

email for whatever: 22caim@abschools.org

for novices

if you dont know what im talking about below this section dont worry, i still sometimes don't know what im talking about either

the most important things you should read is probably the section on weighing and not being rude

other than that:

- i know it sucks to not know the result of the round so i will be disclosing the winner and giving feedback after round unless the tourney explicitly tells me otherwise.

- debate's supposed to be educational, feel free to postround or ask questions as much as you want

- debate however you normally debate, you prob shouldn't need to change up how you debate for a flow judge like me

tldr, im j a normal flow judge

general

im normally tech over truth but the more sketch an argument seems the lower my threshold for responses is

ill trust you to keep your own speech/prep time

speed is ok but if youre gonna go fast j lmk before hand, or send a speech doc

probably goes without saying: i will only vote on arguments in both summary and final focus

defense is sticky but itd b cash money of you to extend it anyways in summary especially given that now theres 3 minutes

if im nodding then ur doing good, if i look confused i probably am

im fine with yall dressing casual, its pretty uncomfortable to be sitting in a a button up shirt with a tie or something all day long, and especially with online debates it doesnt really matter all that much to me

how 2 win:

warranting: warrant everything, when theres competing warrants, please give me a reason to prefer your warrant.

weighing: please please weigh. if no team weighs ill have to intervene and i dont like intervening cuz it makes debaters and me sad. however, this does not mean just yelling "OUTWEIGHONSCOPEANDMAGNITUDEWEWIN", do the warranting as to why they are important, and do the comparative weighing too.

- weighing can come as late as first final.

- if no one weighs ill presume the squo unless told otherwise or ill intervene, both of which you dont want

frontlining in second rebuttal

extensions of uq, warrants, impacts, not just cards

the later responses come in round, the less likely i will eval them

clear narratives/link chains

making puns/having good taglines for contentions gets you +1 speaks

no bueno:

using speed to decrease inclusivity

please dont go up in 2nd rebuttal and say something like "5 tUrNs/oVeRvIeWs aT tHe tOp oF thEir cAse" when they are just das. it will make your opponents sad and make me very sorry i decided to judge.

rudeness in cross, listening to yelling isnt a fun time for me or anyone

evidence debates w/o warranting/comparative

racism/ sexism/ ableism/ homophobia etc, dont do it or probably L 20s

progressive stuff

im not too familiar w progressive arguements (theorys, ks, tricks etc). i always prefer voting off substance, and i have no clue how anything other than theory and k's work, so prob dont run tricks or other stuff. i kinda understand the basics of theory and ks but im still new to them and probably bad at evaluating them, so you might not want to run them unless real abuse happens.

- that said, even though ill try to evaluate prog args, if u run them against a team who clearly doesn't know whats going on, i may intervene and drop you.

feel free to ask any questions you have after round or on fb

I started debate judging in 2020.

Parent judge with some judging experience. I think it hurts more than it helps when you speak too quickly. I don't see the point of "offline roadmaps". I like clear, well-reasoned arguments and I am impressed when teams can respond on the fly to what the other team is saying.

I judged a couple of online tournaments last year, but overall I'm relatively new to judging. Please speak a little slower than normal, so i can fully understand your arguments. I look forward to a fun day.

I have been coaching public forum at Shrewsbury High (MA) since 2014, and am now the head coach there. Please note that Shrewsbury PFers have been instructed not to send their cases to their opponents or their judges. They also will not partake in Theory or K debates since they have no place in Public Forum Debate. They will be debating the resolution as is the entire goal of PF debate.

I have a lot of experience judging, but have also been in the tabroom a lot recently. I believe in the values of public forum debate, meaning that the debate should be able to be adjudicated by a citizen judge. I will flow, but I'm looking for clear signposting and a clear structure to each speech. This is just good practice.

I love a good narrative, but not at the expense of solid evidence and impacts.

I want logically sound warrants, please don't just say that my card is from 2023 when theirs is from 2021...I want a real reason for why your evidence is better in relation to your contentions.

Please give me clash and weighable impacts. But please don't just say you outweigh on scope or magnitude without telling me why.

I really don't want to call for evidence, so please don't use false figures or try anything dodgy. This includes things like, "our opponents didn't respond..." when they clearly did respond.

I will not judge based on any plans, counterplans or critical theories. That is simply not in the spirit of public forum debate.

I don't like roadmaps. Your speech should be clear enough for me to follow without one and it's a problem if you need one, and although I'll probably let you give it, I won't be listening to it.

Don't be rude. This includes good etiquette in crossfire. Condescension will make me look for a way to give you the loss.

I do really like cases I haven't heard before. Just be careful though, the reason they're new is that there's usually an issue with them! That's the fun of all this right!?

New and inexperienced judge, here for a good time :)

Greetings to All,

I am a fairly new parent judge to the Public Forum debate. Few things below:

- Keep an eye on the time.

- Present in an orderly fashion.

- Speak slowly and clearly. If you are too fast I will miss what you are trying to say.

- Respect each other.

- In case you are planning on sharing your evidence please share them with me too.

- Relax and have a great round.

I wish each one of you all the best for todays tournament.

Wishing each one of you a Great Round and Happy Debating!

Hi, I'm Emma McRedmond. I'm a Junior at Lexington High School. I've done one year of Policy and one year of PF. Like everyone I don't allow bigotry in a round and I will vote you down. For actual debating, I can listen to spreading but it is not preferable. And make sure to weigh in ff and have fun!

I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater for 4 years in high school, and then I debated Parliamentary for 4 years in college. I have two teens who have participated in Public Forum, and this is my third year judging PF. I take the concept of "public" in public forum seriously: Which team is the most persuasive to an educated and thoughtful undecided member of the general public? As veteran of LD and Parliamentary, I think fundamental values and principles matter. I am not persuaded by debate tactics or "scoring points" with obscure or hyperbolic arguments. Be organized and responsive to the other side. I like specific historical examples for clarity. Speak fast if you want, but only if you speak clearly and sign-post clearly.

hi i am parent judge lol

tech > truth

pls no spread or be rude

i like puns and funny taglines

running theory w/o checking w/ your opponents first = i will likely not vote on it bc it is v exclusionary

if theory is run in the round pls make it understandable bc i am noob when it comes to progressive args (i appreciate the intent behind it tho)

--

important concessions made in CX should be brought up in speech

independent offence in second rebuttal bad (independent offence does not mean turns, it means something like a whole paragraph explaining a disadvantage about the other side or an offensive overview not mentioned in case, if you're the second speaking team and wanna do this kinda stuff make sure it's in case!)

pls extend links + warrants + impacts thru summary

new stuff in FF kinda cheese O.o

speaks based only on the 4 ppl in the round and the speeches given then

--

i will do my best to be fair and not intervene when judging but pls call out the other team if they are abusing time/ev/stuff

going 30+ secs overtime bad!!!

i will only call cards crucial to determining the win, i don't want to unintentionally interpret ev differently and intervene

if you say something blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/etc. thats gonna be an L + lowest speaks possible

if you ever feel uncomfortable in the round and need it to stop at any time dont hesitate to tell me

safe + fun + educational space > competition

--

feel free to ask for further clarifications or just chat w/ me thru discord @emson#0915

I am a parent judge with a little bit of judging experience.

The biggest things for me that will help me in my decision:

-Please speak slowly so I can catch everything you are saying

-Lots of signposting so know what you are talking about

-Please don't leave anything unresponded to

-I value evidence, so please make sure to back up your arguments with evidence.

-Weigh your case against your opponents to really sell me on your argument

For evaluating speaks, if you speak slowly, clearly, and coherently you are sure to get good speaks

Please time one everything to make sure the debate goes smoothly

Any form of excess aggression or rudeness will result in very low speaks!

For evidence or case, docs use this email: parisvakili@hotmail.com

I did PF for four years at Shrewsbury HS, and I'm currently a freshman at Case Western. Although I mostly competed in PF, I also have experience in Congress and World Schools.

TLDR

At the end of the day, I'll consider most args/frameworks and vote off the flow, but make sure you don't dump substance and cut corners with proper warranting. That said, if you can maintain a consistent narrative throughout the round and the warranting/weighing is there, I'll be more inclined to vote for you.

Preferences

1. I'm comfortable with speed but don't spread.

2. Please collapse. It makes it more difficult to assess the round when teams extend 12 different links with incomplete warranting/frontlining and such. You'll do a much better job if you choose 1-2 of your stronger arguments and make full extensions. That said, I also love when teams collapse on turns. Don't be afraid to use bold back half strategy if it means you can crystallize the round on an impact you both agree is important.

3. I don't really care for progressive args. I find substance debate more useful/interesting in the grand scheme of things.

4. Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other --> The more correspondence between these two speeches, the better.

5. Time yourselves

6. Be nice! I'm sure none of you will have a problem with this but be a good person and don't make snarky remarks, eye roll, ad hominem, etc.

Hello! I am a third-year judge for public forum high school debates. I look forward to hearing you debate!

For each person, I score your two speeches and crossfire on scale of 25-30. Then I average these 3 scores and deduct any decorum penalties. Here’s what I’m looking for:
a. Construction: Present your case = succinct organization, sound reasoning, credible evidence, and clear delivery.
b. Rebuttal: Refute opposing side's arguments. Do not use Rebuttal to cram in more arguments.
c. Summary: Crystallize your case, in light of everything that has happened.
d. Final Focus: Frame with clarity why your team won the debate.
e. Crossfire: Dig into other side’s arguments during CX rounds to find and expose weaknesses.
f. Decorum: I expect professional decorum at all times. I penalize anything less.

My hope is this approach will give you more insight into the areas where you are strong, and where you can improve.

Do not "spread," or speed read (more than ~150 words per minute). You should lay out a few clear arguments supported by your strongest evidence, and clearly articulate the impact of each argument. Quality, not quantity. Less is more. You will not earn points if I can't understand you, or process what you say.

Be reasonable about requesting evidence. Request evidence you don’t believe or you feel is misrepresented. But don’t request evidence you already know to be true. And make sure your evidence is well organized and available offline to maximize efficiency in case a team calls for your evidence.

In scoring each speech and crossfire, I ask myself 3 questions:
1. Did you focus on the task at hand?
2. Did I understand the argument?
3. Was the argument persuasive?

Speaker #1 score = [Construction + Summary + Crossfire] / 3 - Decorum Penalties.
Speaker #2 score = [Rebuttal + Final Focus + Crossfire ] / 3 - Decorum Penalties.

The final score for each person will be: [24] bad decorum. [25-26] below average. [27-28] average. [29-30] above average.

The team with the most points wins the debate. In the case of a tie, I decide based on which side I found more persuasive.

Good luck!

Hey, I'm Atharva and I debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA for four (more like three) years.

Off the bat, I don't have time for racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc. I will drop you and tank your speaks. I also understand that we as debaters can often get heated in round (believe me, I've been there), but I would really appreciate it if you could try to maintain civility so that everyone feels comfortable. Please read trigger warnings when necessary and contact me if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible to you: atharvaweling@gmail.com

My preferences:

I am primarily tech over truth. That being said, I have a low bar for responses to outlandish arguments (i.e. death good). I will only call for evidence if it is pertinent to my decision and highly contested.

I want clear extensions in the latter half of the round. This means warrants, impacts, and any cards that you think are important for either. I'm not going to vote off of the general idea of your case.

The number one thing that you can do to win my ballot is provide a clear narrative throughout the round, which means consistency between speeches and well-explained arguments.

I will always prefer good logic to bad evidence. Every argument you make should have both a warrant and an implication or else it becomes meaningless to me.

WEIGH. From rebuttal onwards, preferably. Good weighing > bad defense in my opinion, so please extend comparative weighing throughout the round.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is a must; at the very least, get turns. I am also highly skeptical of long disads or offensive overviews in second rebuttal and would advise against it.

Similarly, if defense you want to collapse on is frontlined in second rebuttal, it has to be backlined in first summary. However, if it is dropped in second rebuttal, it may be brought up in first final focus.

If you're going to spread, strike me. I cannot handle speed, plain and simple, even with a speech doc. The bottom line is that I would love it if you spoke to me like a parent judge who knows tech jargon.

I have very little experience with progressive argumentation. I won't ask you not to read it, but I do ask that you explain it slowly and in-depth if you do, so no full-blown shells. I will not evaluate plans, CPs, or tricks.

Unless you really screw up on anything from the first paragraph, your speaks likely won't fall below a 28. You can raise them by feeding my ego with insincere compliments.

Lastly, have fun. I want the round to be as enjoyable as possible for everyone involved, so crack a few jokes and feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm or my decision whenever you want to.

Hello, I have 4 years of debate experience on the national circuit debating for Wayland High School

Likes:

- New arguments in second final focus. I love to be surprised when a team pulls out a surprise victory with a new argument late in the round.

- Unwarranted assertions. Who cares if there's any reason why your argument is true? All it needs to do is sound good.

- I prefer that debaters stare at each other during cross, not when they look at me. I want to feel like a spectator, not like I'm involved.

- Crossfire. This is debate, so I value crossfire above all else. Unlike "tech" judges, I will be on my phone during speeches, but be taking extensive notes on crossfire.

- If you want 30s, end every speech with "please clap"

Dislikes:

- Speed. I cannot follow anything about 100 words per minute.

- Collapsing. To me, it looks like you have given up on several of your arguments. Good debaters should be able to cover the entire 16 min of the first half into 3 minutes.

- English. Lingua latina maxima est.

Good Luck! and have fun!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the real paradigm. I think that I am a fairly traditional tech judge and there isn't that much out of the ordinary here.

- When I'm making my decision, I look for a team that's winning offense and weighing. In the events that both teams are winning weighing, then I expect metaweighing or I will be forced to intervene (you don't want that).

- If there are two contradicting pieces of evidence in the round, I need a reason to prefer one piece of evidence over another. If no comparison is given, I will be forced to call for the evidence and intervene (you don't want that).

- Anything that's in FF must be in summary.

- Please don't be rude especially in cross

- I played around w Ks and little bit as a debater, so I have like a very baseline understanding of them, and I will evaluate them; however, if you plan on reading a K, I expect two things

1. If you're reading an argument about spreading discourse, I expect you to flip for whatever side the K is on, and I expect you to read the K in every round that you are able to

2. I think that you should only read a K if you genuinely believe in it. I won't be able to tell in the round, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you don't believe in it, I feel like you're just reading it to win a round.

- I am willing to vote on theory. I never ran it as a debater, but I think I understand it enough to vote off of it. Please only read theory on legitimate violations on the rules of debate. If you read something like mouthwash theory, I won't vote off of it.

- Please ask any other questions before the round.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slow.

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

Peter Zopes
Speech and Debate Coach, Chelmsford High School

I participated in Policy Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking in high school (in the late 70s), though mostly Extemp. I teach US History, Speech and Debate, and Government. I’m in my fourteenth year of coaching Speech and Debate. I think formal debate and argumentation has real value; it drives public discourse and helps society progress. I am very interested in what I see going on in the debate community, though not all do I agree. That being said, here is my judging paradigm that outlines my position on debate.

The Resolution. I prefer substantive debate that focuses on the resolution. There is a reason we have a resolution, debate that! Be clear, concise, and clash. Be topical. Debate the contentions, the evidence, the link, warrant, etc. Don’t waste time on frameworks or arguing about debate! I’m not a fan of theory or kritiks. (They smack of deconstructionist word play!) Be professional, speak to the judge (me!) not your paper or laptop, and address your opponent with respect. Stand during the round. Dress professionally. (Yes, imagine that!) I can flow most things that comes my way, however, speed and volume (not loudness, but the amount of information put forth) do not necessarily further the debate.

Case and Evidence. This is key. In LD, debate is value based, you must demonstrate how your case is constructed to achieve the value and value criterion you identified. If not, this will negatively affect my judgment on the round. In PF show strong case development in support of your side of the resolution, with strong claims, evidence, and warrants. Arguments need to be developed and elaborated upon, not just with vague statements, but with supportive evidence (statistics, analogies, statements, data, etc, from philosophical, legal, theological, historic, and news sources). This should be used both in case development and rebuttal (when appropriate). Evidence used should be clearly identified in the reading of the card in terms of both author and source. (Name of author, title of article, and if needed title of publication and date) During rebuttal explain how you or your opponent did or did not support their side of the resolution via claim, evidence or warrant. Specifically identify voting issues raised, defended or dropped.

Speaker Points. Be professional, polite, articulate, strategic, and clear. This is the basis for determining speaker points. DON'T Spread or even try to talk really fast. All words have a clear beginning and end. I need to hear them. IF YOU SPREAD, YOU LOSE. Your case should be presented in a manner that is not over flowing with debate jargon or nomenclature.

Something to keep this in mind: In the original debates, if either Lincoln or Douglas conducted their debates in the manner modern debaters do, neither would have won. The audiences would have walked away. Modern LD and Policy debate may provide you with some great learning experiences, however, constructing and delivering a case in the manner I hear today is not one of them. All you are learning is how to deliver to a narrow, self-selected audience. I hope and will do what I can to prevent PF from proceeding down that path. Further, too often debaters dismiss parent judges for not knowing enough about debate. That is the wrong mindset. It is not the parent judges' job to become an expert in your type of debate or the resolution. Your job is to educate them on the resolution and your case, and convince them your position is correct. You need to adjust your delivery to reach them. The number one consideration for any debater or speaker is reaching their audience. If you lose the audience, you lose the debate. Simple. The supposed "cool" judges who let you do whatever you want are not helping you develop your skills beyond the narrow world of debate. Selecting judges with widely different judging paradigms does! Good luck!

Update. I prefer a narrative presentation of the arguments. Telling me you are "frontlining' this, "extending" that, is overtly technical and undermines the rhetorical nature of the event which we chose to engage. Avoid the nomenclature of debate - identifying the structure various parts of or the process of argument, but explain to me, in clear concise language, what arguments you are advancing in the round and why they have impact compared to your opponents' arguments. Good speaking, like good writing, is precise and concise, avoids jargon and uses common, proscribed vernacular.