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.

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

I competed in PF for four years for Johnston High School in Des Moines, Iowa. I currently go to Emory University and have judged policy on the urban debate league.

The only time I will intervene is if you do not weigh in the round. Please make sure you are weighing and doing the appropriate impact calc in summary and final focus. That being said, I am pretty open to any type of impact as long as you give me a good reason to buy into it.

If you do not extend an argument into summary and final focus, I will assume you dropped it. Please extend anything you want me to weigh/vote on throughout the round. I am also a big fan of signposting, it makes my flow easier to chart and will make it easier for me to weigh your impacts.

SPEED: I'm fine with speed, but you need to make sure you are clearly understood during the whole round if you choose to speak faster. That being said, do not spread. This is not a CX or LD round, so make sure you are speaking at a pace appropriate for PF.

Above all, I value respect in the debate. I know rounds can be stressful/get heated but do not be rude or aggressive towards your opponent. Additionally, if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc., I'll drop you.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round!

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you  won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or  I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for..

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10.  Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

Tl;dr: You can do whatever you want in any event as long as it's vaguely topical, and not directly harmful to your opponents as people. I have a high threshold for what counts as "directly harmful". Don't tell me who to vote for at the end (I will drop on "therefore, you will vote x"), show me that you've won through the entire round. If I hear the phrase "independent voter for fairness and education" I will scream. Ks should be everywhere; run baby Ks in congress even, provided you meet all my other Congress-specific notes below! Trans woman (she/her), if that's a problem, strike.

Biographical notes

At the outset: I'm a trans woman, if my hearing you in a round is going to create an ethical or moral dilemma for you, please strike. I do not want to cause somebody to encounter factors outside of round that affect their performance. (That said, my being trans does not preclude you from running arguments in front of me that originate from a 'gender critical' or 'trans exclusionary' perspective. I find these interesting from a purely academic standpoint. As you'll find below, the long and short of my philosophical paradigm is "anything, short of actual violence, goes")

I competed in Public Forum (albeit never in the manner intended by its creators), domestic Extemporaneous Speaking, and Congressional Debate between 2010 and 2012, qualifying to the national tournament in the latter two events in 2012 (competing in DX). I have a Bachelor of Arts in English from Drake University, with concentrations in critical theory and "history and traditions" (read, early modern English literature and drama). I am currently on an extended and self-imposed exile from academia, and I work for a telephone company, first working in a repair call handling center, then developing business process automations for operational support systems.

Philosophical underpinnings

During my undergraduate education, I concentrated heavily on the study of critical theory and continental philosophy more broadly ("it's only critical theory if it comes from the Frankfurt School, otherwise it's just sparkling continental philosophy"). If a discipline contains the word "studies" in its title, I am familiar with its broader history and theoretical concerns. If you cite someone relatively well known (i.e. included in major anthologies of critical work, is at least as well known as, say, McKenzie Wark) I likely know as much as you do about them, and can comfortably place your citation in their larger oeuvre. Do not be afraid to be an agile, creative debater, experimenting with form and function. I generally don't care what the intended purpose of an event is, as much as what you can do within the confines of the speech order and timings (more on this below).

As far as the political content of a given argument, I am only concerned that positions taken are thought out, and while a round between Pinochet adorers and Ceausescu fans may result in two ships passing in the discursive night, one unable to account for the other, I am perfectly happy to judge cases stemming from either extreme. It may be an artifact of my own competitive era, but I am largely unsympathetic to claims that the particular use of language (short of actual slurs) is violent in and of itself, short of a chain of warrants able to support such a claim. If you are making a claim that something is "discursively harmful" or "rhetorical violence" I will evaluate your agency and positionality to make that claim based on what you are willing to disclose to me about yourself.

Stylistic preferences for traditional debate events (CX, LD, PF)

There is a good reason I don't judge speech: I have a particular aversion to "good" oratorical skills. I don't expect you, nor do I want you, to behave like Jacob Rees-Mogg in a CX, LD, or PF round. If I can't parse your speech, I may ask to read the cards you use; please be prepared to furnish legible printed materials that you reference in round if asked.

I will not ask you to do my work for me. You should be presenting arguments, challenging one another, and developing your cases across the round in *active response to one another*. But I'm not going to ask you to "write my RFD for me" or whatever, because again, I'm not judging speech, so I reserve my right to exercise the capacity I have for reason. I actually find it philosophically repugnant that we would ask you to argue in front of a judge who would need to be told who won a round.

I will vote on anything that is remotely topical, which means I will not prohibit any form of argument in any event. Run what you genuinely want to run, and I'll judge it on the merits inherent to its form and content. I won't vote down something because "it doesn't belong in PF" or "you didn't do a classical value/criterion structure in LD," or whatnot.

Stylistic preferences for Congressional Debate

I never thought I'd be writing a paradigm for Congress, but I've also always wanted to. The goal of Congressional Debate is to simulate the operation of a deliberative assembly. Participants will be judged, whether chairing or speaking, with regards to the degree to which they successfully emulate the behavior of a member of a deliberative assembly, and the degree to which their contributions further the operation of the deliberative assembly.

Proposers of legislation, as well as initial opponents (i.e. first advocacy and first rejection) will be judged on their speeches, as well as the debate that follows their legislation and the initial opposition, affecting the former more than the latter. Thus, I will reserve scores for these speeches until the legislation is voted on. (EDIT 1/27/21: Tabroom doesn't really allow for this so instead, this *vaguely affects room ranking* at the end.) Submitting legislation to a tournament engenders a responsibility to not only effectively argue its point of view, but to give the chamber a substantial opportunity for fruitful debate. As someone who has done this both well and poorly, the difference is visible and, in my view, judicable.

Presiding officers will be judged on their efficient preservation of order and facilitation of debate. Remember that you "have neither eyes to see nor mouth to speak, except as this House gives you leave" and that your role is to ensure the operation of the chamber, not to perform within it. Calls to order should be swift, mastery of the particular forms of parliamentary invocations should be evident, and the rules governing the order of speaking and questioning should be clearly articulated and evenly enforced. Presiding officers will be evaluated based on scoring norms established by the given tournament, with a median score for each hour falling near n-2, where n is the maximum allowable speech score.

Speaking members should direct their remarks to the chair. Failure to do so will result in an automatic award of the minimum permissible speech score.

Judging conduct

In addition to the above, event specific advice, I would like to furnish a few guarantees.

First: I promise to hear your round with the attention and care it deserves. Public speaking is a valuable skill, you are deciding to share your skill with me, therefore my personal ethics demand that I give you a debt of respect in return. I am here because I value speech and debate as activities, and I wish its continuation.

Second: I will furnish a decision within four minutes of the end of the last speech. It may, or may not, be accompanied by a detailed reason for decision at the time of disclosure, but will receive a detailed RFD on the ballot.

Third: i will evaluate your round solely on the content of speeches, questions, and answers. While some judges have stylistic preferences that extend into the presentational or even sartorial realm, I am decidedly uninterested in your eloquence, your dress, or any other signifiers of "professionalism." You're teenagers, and my expectations bear that in mind.

Fourth: If something happens during (or immediately outside of) round (outside of here meaning after speeches but prior to disclosure) that is actively harmful to any of the involved parties, myself excluded, I will intervene. I will not reward toxic competitive behavior in round as long as it is something that I am able to see or hear happen. Note, however, that my capacity to intervene is limited to the ballot, and to the contents of the round, and anything that happens afterward should be addressed either through tournament staff or with your coach.

Fifth: Promise four aside, I have no interest in taking any decisions that limit the content of the round. I have no strong preferences as to what your presentations contain, insofar as they are (a) yours and (b) presentations. I am very interested, as stated above, in creative uses of the format in which you operate.

In sum

Above all, I hope your round in my room is an enjoyable and fruitful one.

http://savethenautilus.com/

nl1gordon1@gmail.com

Background:

I debated at Abraham Lincoln High School (DSM) Public Forum for three years, I also did all kinds of speech events. During that time, I had something like ten different PF partners, and I never qualified to the TOC or Nationals, so take from that what you want.

General Round Stuff

I hate it when debaters are disrespectful, talking over each other, or arguing with the judge after the round. If you do any of these things, expect low speaker points right from the beginning. Misrepresenting the rules will have the same effect.

I will buy logical arguments that don't have 100% solid link evidence. For instance, if the resolution passes, Canada will do things the US doesn't like (Card), which means relations get worse (No Card), worse relations are bad because X (Card). Obviously if you are making big leaps and long link chains I need to see the evidence that says any of that is actually going to happen.

You need to weigh during the round as soon as possible. This is something I struggled to do, and only really started to understand at the end of my debate career. For judges, having all of the information during the round is great, but if there is no weighing, there is no way to expect the judge to vote for your case.

Dress how you want, if that is a suit and tie, khakis and a polo, or the stuff you woke up in. The content is magnitudes more important to me than the way you look.

Progressive Debate

I will have a hard time voting on things like theory or kritiks, but topicality is easy enough for my monkey brain to understand.

If there has been a clear violation during the round on the basis of someones sex, race, orientation, or ability, i will probably drop them before you even bring it up in a speech. That said, do bring it up to make sure I know about it.

Round Suggestions

You can do pretty much anything you want argument-wise. However, if you want to win the round you might want to do some of the things on this list.

Cost/Benefit. All you need to do to get rid of a framework the the other team suggests is say, there are impacts outside of that framework.

I need to be able to hear, understand, and flow your constructive, (and later speeches). I can tolerate some speed, but when your speed is approaching policy, you need to slow down.

Clash in the round. There should be arguments against their arguments. If the entire case round is spent on one side of the flow it becomes difficult to vote (unless there are link-turns or impacts-turns, but you get the idea).

Do a line-by-line for every speech except the final focus. It makes it easier for me to understand the details of the debate. If you skip around you will lose me in the minutia.

Extend your arguments. You can extend with card names, but you should tell me what the card says. If arguments are dropped early in the round, just to be brought up near the end, call it out. I would suggest still putting some defense on it in case you just didn't catch it, and it was never dropped in the first place.

Speaker Points

Speaker points should be a representation of how well you speak, hence the name. But things like round control, manners, and organization will also impact your score. Do not read 2x30 in front of me, and if you don't know what that means, good.

Cross was always one of my favorite parts of a debate round because it gives the speakers an opportunity to show off their topic knowledge. I will take cross into account when determining your speaker points. Once again, be polite, don't talk over one another or your teammates. If you control the cross, whether that be through asking dominating questions while allowing your opponent to ask some of their own, or answering questions in a way that allows you to fully explain your case/arguments.

Extras

Running Arctic Drilling, or weird enviro args -> +0.5 speaks.

Having an educated conversation during grand cross about the Nautilus pompilius -> I will like you more

My preferences for judging a debate are: 1) That debaters not speed spread, if I can't follow your arguments it's hard to persuade me. It also makes for a better Public Forum debate if everyone can follow the main arguments. 2) That crossfire be cordial, being rude and/or cutting a speaker off will lose you points. 3) I prefer that your evidence support your argument, not that it tangentially might apply. I also an extensive background in speech and debate as a high school student and as a high school Speech & Debate Coach and a speech Judge.

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language.

General: Please respect me by not using graphic descriptions of violence or abuse in your argumentation - if you have a question about this I’m willing to talk to you before round. I will not vote for what I feel are morally repugnant arguments like “racism good,” “torture good,” or “death good.” Do not take me or my ballot hostage. Do not argue for a double loss or a double win.

Speed: I’d prefer you go slowly. Fewer cards often means more skill in argumentation.

LD and PF
I approach LD and PF rounds through the lens of policy debate. So LD or PF specific jargon, abbreviations, and tricks likely will not resonate with me. I want clear impacts and impact analysis. I do not like paraphrasing and I want clash. Lots of clash. I feel like at the end of a lot of rounds I've not be told hold to weigh the two teams' impacts. So lots of clash is only good with lots of impact weighing. In LD, I generally do not know or understand your kritiks. So take the time to explain to me how your kritik interacts with your opponent’s case.

Policy Debate
I think policy debate is about whether or not the aff's plan/advocacy should happen.

Kritiks : I think that Affs should have a written advocacy statement, but they do not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. I prefer the policy making framework, but do have an appreciation for performance debate. Despite working for the NSDA, I think there are a lot of problems with debate as an activity/community. If you choose to kritik the institution of competitive debate, I appreciate arguments that are solutions-oriented.

Theory+ Topicality : I was a 2A so I have a residual aff bias when it comes to theory. For me to vote on T it must be proven that the aff’s interpretation is flawed and that abuse has happened in round. I have a hard time weighing different standards for theory and T - you need to do that work for me on the negative, if you don’t I will likely presume aff on T.

My Background
I work at the National Speech & Debate Association as the Leadership and Education Specialist. I have a theatre teaching degree, a master's in performance studies, and a master's degree in teaching English Language Learners. I am married to my former college teammate, Chase McCool, but we don't always agree on debate-things, so don't assume!

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

I have judged PF for the last 6+ years, over 100 rounds and run many judge trianings.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach. Just as background: I studied political science and international relations and now work in state politics. I'm a very average flow judge. Clean up the round/write my ballot for me PLEASE.

add me to the email chain morgandylan183@gmail.com.

Flip, pre-flow, and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get to there.

I will and expect other teams to call out others noticeably prep stealing, please don't do this.

Don't shake my hand

I evaluate the round, first, by looking to framework, then weighing to see where to vote. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this.

Speed: I do not want to have to follow along in a doc, be understandable.

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow. Non-highlighted cards are a BIG no. (note: cards can be abused, if your opponents string together words to make a new argument, that is a legitimate reason for me to strike it from the flow)

You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy args on my flow and I shouldn't have to.

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides soommee weighing

I love tons of warranting, smart analytics, good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff, and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

I love it when you make things on the flow interact with each other: explain any links between contention, use cards from one argument for another arg, concede a delink to logically get out of turns, find a contradiction, literally any weighing at all...

Progressive Arguments

I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates and I don't care. BUT If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory. I'm not that familiar with K's or any other progressive args.I am a lay progressive judge. Slow down and explain everything more. I require sending speech docs for these.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine. I will doc speaks if you do not do things I specifically ask, i.e. slowing down during progressive args.

I love being asked questions and helping you learn!!

Jon Williamson

B.A. Political Science; M.A. Political Science; J.D. & Taxation LL.M Candidate - University of Florida Levin College of Law

Experience:

Competitor: HS Policy Debate 2001 - 2005; College Policy Debate 2005-2007; College NPDA Parli Debate 2009-2010

Coach: 2007-2020: Primarily Policy and Public Forum; but coached all events

Basic Judging Paradigm Haiku:

I will judge the flow

Weigh your impacts at the end

Don't be mean at all

Public Forum: All arguments you want me to vote on in the final focus must have had a minimum of a word breathed on them in the summary speech.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to policymaker. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all other theory.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.

I tend to avoid reading evidence if it is not necessary. I would like to be on your email chain (my name @gmail.com) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination.

LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.