1. Weigh!! This isn't just telling me "we outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc" but also offering an explanation. You need to establish the comparative between your world vs. your opponent's world.

2. Please signpost!! If I don't know where it goes on the flow, it's going to be super difficult for me to consider the argument in my decision (and I just won't write it down). To that point, make sure when you extend cards, you don't just say "Extend the Smith card." You need to tell me what Smith says and why the card is important.

3. I really don't want (or need) an off-time roadmap.

4. I don't flow cross so if something important is said please bring it up in another speech. Let your opponents answer the question and don't be rude.

5. If you want me to actually vote off your link turn, you need to explain the impact of it in sum/FF.

6. Quality > Quantity. Cards are important but I also think creating a narrative and establishing the comparative is important as well. Just giving me all these cards with no explanation forces me to do the comparison for you, which I don't like doing.

7. I'm noticing that theory and Ks are becoming more common in PF. I'm really unfamiliar with them, and PF isn't really the type of debate for kritiks/theory in my opinion. I won't evaluate any theory/K's in my decision (unless I absolutely have to).

I am an experienced parent judge. Please go slow and clear so I can understand what you're saying. Please don't use any discriminatory language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did pf for 4 years in highschool.

I flow the whole round. Extend arguments your opponents don't respond to, that's an easy way to get my vote. On the other hand, make sure during rebuttal that I get something down on my flow in response to all points. 4 minutes is plenty of time, don't put 6 responses on one contention and gloss over the others with a card or two, make sure you get everything.

Summary is the most important speech for me. A good summary will make me completely disregard every legit response in your opponents rebuttal. There needs to be framework by the time summary is finished or tell me how I weigh impacts. Aka tell me what perspective I should be looking at the debate and the impacts with. Extend important cards with their names in both summary and final focus. In summary and final focus, if you dont walk me through the round and tell me which arguments your side is winning, it will be hard for me to vote for you.

Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.

- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.

- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.

- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.

- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.

- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.

- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.

I am more familiar with LD Debate. I debated back in high school so I have an understanding of most terms.

General Debate:

I don't usually judge based on the formality or how nice you are to me. However, there is a fine line between joking around and blatant disrespect so just be sure not to disrespect anyone in the room. Mannerisms are important, the way you present yourself to me or your opponent, but I won't usually judge on that unless you give me a reason to. All I ask is to be respectful during the whole round. I can deal with minor aggression during a round, but don't take it too far because I will draw the line when I feel there is clear abuse. I would prefer if you use all of your time during your speeches but I won't take away points if you simply had a couple of seconds left on the clock. I trust all of you to time yourselves, however, if you need me to time you or give signals just let me know and we'll work something out. I will time you just to hold you accountable and make sure you're using most of your time. Since we are under unusual circumstances with everything being online, if you're cut out I'll give you time to relay what was missed if you and your opponent agree to that. If you go over time, I'll let you finish your last sentence before cutting you off.

Spreading:

I'm okay with speed as long as you're clear and you're not gasping for air. If you're going too fast I'll let you know, but try to keep it at an understandable pace because if I can't understand what you're saying, I'm not going to be able to properly judge.

Value Structure (LD- Only):

This plays a huge part in my decision, so make sure you bring it up throughout the round and how it relates to your case. Most importantly, I like to see a clash between value structures.

Framework (PF-Only):

I won't dock points off if you don't have one, however, if your opponent does bring up a framework, I will take it into consideration when I make my decision.

Cards/Evidence:

I trust that your opponent will keep tabs on your evidence, I also trust that you have done the research to make sure your evidence is credible. However, it comes to my attention that there has been a lack of credibility, it will obviously reflect on your ballot. I'm not really a stickler for challenging evidence, but again that's entirely up to you or your opponent.

Please don't refer to your cards by the author's name. I will NOT keep track of it that way, so when you make multiple references to a card by the author's name, I'm not going to have any idea what specific evidence you're talking about.

Point system/ Ballots:

I will always write detailed ballots when I am given the chance. I will probably talk a lot more about the things you can work on rather than the things you did well on. It's not meant to discourage anyone in any way, however, if you do feel like I said something that didn't sit well with you, don't be afraid to let me know so I can learn from it. Everything I write in your ballots are merely suggestions and what I point out is simply so you can do better next time.

I normally won't give anything lower than a 26 unless you were blatantly rude during the whole entire round or offensive. I will not tolerate any blatant disrespect so please refrain from any derogatory terms. If I hear something that's clearly offensive to another person's identity or if you're just incredibly rude to everyone, it will reflect on your ballot.

Don’t be rude to your opponents. Articulate clearly.

I am a lay judge. I've completed online training and watched several demo videos.

Speed: I'm okay with speed, but I really like an articulate, eloquent speaker. Prioritize clarity, be sure to signpost, don't spread, and you'll be fine.

Framework: Please make your Value and Value Criterion clear at the beginning, weave them into your case, and tell me explicitly why your input is better than your opponent's.

I prefer some scholarly philosophies in there with supportive arguments.

Finish strong and on time. Be specific.

I did 4 years of PF and Speech with Unionville and graduated in 2010, and have judged national circuit regularly since. Most recently, I judged PF at Yale 2021.

I appreciate evidence, but value argument structure and critical thinking/logic more. Cards should be used as support for, and not in place of contentions. Please set up a weighing mechanism for the round as early as possible; I will expect the round to be distilled into voting issues by the time we get to Summary and Final Focus.

If frameworks/definitions are a crucial part of your case, I expect it to come up in the first constructive and reiterated throughout the round.

Likewise, key contentions and responses must come within constructives/rebuttals. Summaries and Final Focus are for refining arguments, not for raising entirely new points your opponents have no time to respond to.

If you do not extend your arguments, I will generally not include them in the final weighing. If you do not quantify your impacts, i will have to use a judgement call to decide what each one is worth.

Cross fire will not be flowed, but will be evaluated in speaker points. If you make a point in Cross fire that is important, please include it in the next speech.

The round will be flowed, and I'm generally ok with speed, but if you spread to the point where I can no longer flow, I will stop flowing.

Calling for evidence is fine, but I expect you to have your cards organized and accessible enough that locating them when called for is straightforward. If it takes an excessive amount of time for you to find the card, I will drop it from the flow.

Being professional/not condescending means I won't slash your speaks.

shubo.yin@aya.yale.edu

Flow judge. Clean rounds are nice. Please have evidence. Please display critical thinking.

Hey, I'm Joy (she/her/hers)! Former policy/pf debater. Ask me for my email before the round starts. Also, please try to keep your volume at a reasonable level. Thank you for accommodating me. :)

Check with your opponents for any accessibility requests before the round starts. And don't be a jerk! You can be an excellent communicator without getting aggressive or using demeaning language.

Make my path to the ballot easy. Explicit voters/weighing, resolution of clash, and consistency across the flow will garner you a win. I'm going to call for evidence if you highlight/dispute it. While I'm not a fan of blippy extensions, it's still better than nothing to make sure you don't get lost in the LBL. Content/form/style deviations from the norm aren't an issue for me as long as you do it well - debate is socially constructed to an extent. Buy into the choices you make and make sure your opponents are okay with it too.

Procedurals: Tend to default to C/I unless the reasonability claim is actually fleshed out. Outline immediate consequences for abuse claims and how my ballot plays into that.

Ks: I'm probably not familiar with your literature. Fully articulate the world of the alternative and how the perm can't access it. Usually can be persuaded one way or the other on axiomatic good claims but only if they come early enough in the round - can't be a 2nr hail mary.

I would advise to competitors to define their cases clearly and present their contentions and rebuttals at a pace that is easy to keep up with. If you want to make a very important point, the slower you speak the better. Most of us can think much faster then we can flow. I’m sure over the years I’ve missed points that students would have wanted me to consider. I also value professionalism and courtesy.