Hi.

I'm a pog judge. Consider me a flay judge, but I will flow the round. I am willing to buy arguments such as nuclear war is good, so you can run anything. I have done 4 years of PF, I've qualified to TOC (1 gold, 1 silver).

+1 speaks for any Minecraft / TikTok / Current Event references

Please be nice to your opponents.

See you soon.

Speed:

I can handle most speeds, but I would like words to be well enunciated.

Crossfire:

I will listen to crossfire, but you need to bring up your points in speech.

Weighing:

Please provide weighing in at least your final focus.

Extensions:

There is no need to waste precious speaking seconds repeating a block if it has not been responded to yet. For entire arguments, please extend them if you want to keep them.

Evidence / Ideology:

Truth > tech. However, evidence comes first, so make sure cards are well cut and say what you would like them to say. I will call for pieces of evidence I know to be false or I suspect. However, I will not do anything about slightly wrong cards, as it is your job to catch your opponents. For example, there was a card that said "9 out of 10 start ups fail," but there were many debaters who said that 9 out of 10 small businesses fail. I will be mildly annoyed, but there is a limit to how much I will intervene.

Further Clarification:

Please ask me questions before round. Do not ask me to vote for you because you want another bid and are trying to qualify to TOC (my opponents mentioned this to the judge once).

hi! i'm nikki, and i am a varsity pf debater at the nueva school going into her fourth year of debate at nueva and her fifth year of debate overall. add me to your email chain nikagra@nuevaschool.org

i will be a flow judge, I can flow pretty much everything but if you start spreading I won't pick everything up, and I don't accept speech docs for crazy fast speeches. if I miss it then I miss it and it's not on the flow.

pf:

- defense is sticky but only if you extend the tag and argument

- dropped arguments have 100% probability if you extend and weigh

- collapse, weigh, and frontline in your summary. this includes extending your full argument (link-warrant-impact) in summary and final focus to give me something to weigh on

- time yourself, I don't pay attention to that

- weigh weigh weigh!

- i won't flow cross but i will listen to it.

- i won't look at evidence unless you ask me to

- I will drop teams for homophobic/sexist/ableist/racist/etc remarks and tank your speaks. no exceptions.

i will disclose my decision. don't be mean and have fun!

other types:

I have minimal experience with parli and no experience with LD or speech types (other than impromptu) but I hold most of the things in the pf paradigm true here. if I can't here it I won't flow it, don't spread, weigh, and be clear.

Hi! I'm Claire. I was decent at PF in high school (College Prep BB, if you want to stalk me). I still coach (Palo Alto High School) and debate (BP and APDA at Stanford).

How I judge PF:

Tech > Truth, I'll vote off of anything on the flow as long as it's 1) warranted and extended and 2) not offensive/discriminatory in any way.

Evidence still needs warrants. Please have good evidence ethics and send evidence quickly. I will call for evidence if it's contested, and it should be a proper cut card that actually says what you say it does.

Frontline in second rebuttal and collapse well in the back half, it'll make the round much nicer for everyone involved.

Extend your arguments fully, don't just extend taglines and author names. If you want me to vote for an argument it needs to be warranted and weighed in both summary and final focus.

Weighing should be comparative. Don't just read made up jargon, give me actual reasons why your impacts are more important and tell me how to evaluate the round.

I'm fine with speed. Send speech docs (cbeamer@stanford.edu) if you're planning to go fast (or even if you're not), but I won't flow off of the doc; if you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll let you know, but after that it's on you if I miss anything.

I'd prefer you debate the topic, but I'm fine with progressive arguments and will evaluate them just like any thing else. For theory debates, I default to competing interps and no RVIs but you can change that pretty easily.

I don't care about your "brief off time road map." Just tell me what flow to start on and signpost during your speech.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round! And, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out (email or messenger).

How I give speaker points:

1. Auto 30s to everyone in the round if you collectively agree to have a paper only round with no evidence and treat it like it's British Parliamentary.

2. Otherwise, they will be based on cross. I promise I have good reasons for this; I will not elaborate.

How I judge anything else:

Do whatever you want; I probably won't know the rules of your event so you can make new ones up for all I care. Although, being persuasive, reasonable and clear will probably be in your best interest.

Please pre-flow before rounds!!!

Hey everyone, I’m Elliot. I debated with my sister Claire as part of College Prep BB. I'm a sophomore at Duke University and I coach for Durham Academy.

Add me to the chain: eb393@duke.edu

Remember to collapse well, extend your argument fully, and weigh! Good weighing fully compares the impact you are going for with your opponents impact, and tells me through what lens I should make my decision.

I prefer a substance debate with good clash. I am open to evaluating any kind of argument — however I reserve the right to intervene if debaters are reading arguments in an inaccessible manner. Don’t be mean or problematic please, it won’t go well for you.

Feel free to go fast if you want but you should definitely send a speech doc! I can listen to and understand speed but I much prefer to have a doc to make sure I don't miss anything when I flow. If your opponents call for evidence and you have a doc with all of your evidence, just send the whole doc, and send it as a Word doc or in the text of an email. Stop sending a google doc and deleting it after the round...Have all your evidence ready please. If you take a while to send evidence - you’ll lose speaker points and you are also giving your opponents a chance to steal prep.

I think that almost all structural violence framing needs to be in rebuttal or constructive. I wont evaluate a blip read in summary thats like "don't evaluate any other impacts bla bla bla." You can read new weighing in summary but if it's not in summary it shouldn't be in final, unless you are just tweaking implications of the same piece of weighing or making a backline to a new response from first final or second summary.

Returning to in person debate norms:

• You can sit down or stand when speaking, whatever makes you feel most comfortable
• Please at least try to make some eye contact during your speeches and during crossfire
• During prep time, don't talk so loudly that everyone can hear what you are saying

Some of my favorite judges when I debated: Eli Glickman, Will Sjostrom, Sanjita Pamidimukkala, Gabe Rusk

add me to email chain: ellieyxbi@gmail.com

general things:

- signpost, do voters, weigh, clash please

- i will not flow crossfire, so anything important said in cross must be in speech

- i can handle speed but be clear

- be respectful

I am a former varsity PF debater and Impromptu speaker. I also won the Big Questions Tournament 2022 (as my teammates requested I put in here). I use she/her pronouns. I don't really care about formality (clothes, shoes, setup, whatever, although don't be ridiculous for both our sakes). If you have tech issues, let me know and we can figure it out. Call me dude if you want to, I'll find it fun.

I won't dispute unless you tell me to, be nice, don't make me intervene. I'm fairly flow but I'm also literally a high schooler. Speed is fine, but please organize and signpost well. Have good evidence. Don't be rude. Tech over truth. Theory/K is fine, but needs to be explained thoroughly. Make puns.

I don't have all that much experience in anything other than PF but I have a pretty good gist of the other events.

**tl;dr read the bold. I like starting on time/early if possible.

For background, I debated PF 4 years at Newton South and it's my 4th year coaching at Nueva. I feel like it's best if you probably treat me like a flay leaning tech judge? If you have issues with any parts of my paradigm I'm happy to discuss and/or potentially change some preferences for the round. The later in the day it gets, the more tired I get, so if I'm grumpy it's not you, it's me.

---Most normal tech things apply: here are more unique thoughts

Tech~Truth: I will buy anything that at least kinda makes sense as your arguments get more extreme/factually incorrect. I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents to lose it.

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over a unwarranted card. Extend internal links (logical warranting) in addition to overall links/impacts otherwise I won't want to vote on it (99% of the time this is the reason I squirrel in out rounds). This isn’t Pokémon, I don’t want to hear why your card beats their card.

Please do not signpost by cards (ideally, number voters and use contention tags)

---Other stuff

- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :)

- Theory/Progressive args: Run at your own risk, I'm not an expert but know the basics. I tend to think theory disadvantages new debaters so I'll probably only vote on it if: y'all all are down for it pre-round (and my level of judging lol) and/or there's actual discrimination happening and/or it's drop the arg not the debater

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I think you should consider thinking of weighing less with buzzwords and more by literally thinking about why one is more important than explaining it (truth is convincing).

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, drop it. Find cards within a couple minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to, but won't do it on my own unless a card is both important and sketchy - if it is bad, I won't consider it regardless of whether your opponents called it or not.

- Be sensitive and respectful: Co-opting issues for a strat is not ok - care about the issue, have a productive debate. Consider if you need a content/trigger warning + spare contention. These issues are real and affect the people around you, possibly including me and those in your round and I will not hesitate to vote you down and drop speaks if something is up. That being said, let me determine that: please don't make "they don't care enough" args.

Last thoughts: I generally don’t presume and instead just lower my link/round standards til someone meets them. Let your parents watch your rounds! They've earned it. And remember to eat!

Email: kaylaxchang@berkeley.edu. Please feel free to reach out for any concern, round/not round related.

about me:

• first year out
• did pf for six years/competed under St Francis BC
• I now do APDA at Stanford, but I'm very much a beginner at parli so please bear with me if I'm your judge for it.

email chain: alexchas@stanford.edu

**General**

Tech > Truth, but my barrier for overlooking your evidence that says that the moon is made of cheese is low if you don’t support it with well substantiated warranting when faced with a response or evidence challenge.

My view of a good strategy/performance is simple:

1. Warranting is your friend: whether you’re reading a turn, weighing, extending, or reading framework, warrant warrant warrant. Teams that read concise, well intentioned, and well substantiated warranting have never in my eyes been hurt by it.

But Alex if I warrant that aggressively I can’t read my blippy contentions, turns, and weighing anymore :(

Haha so true bestie, that’s the point

1. Towards the back half of the round, I want to see both teams collapse and weigh to make it clear to me what your narrative is, why I should vote for your case/link/turn specifically, and how it interacts with the round as a whole.

2. #1 also implies that speeches between partners will share a common vision and strategy, which definitely ain’t happening if your FF doesn’t mirror your Summary.

3. This is a preference but I prefer cohesive and nuanced cases over spamming multiple contentions with subpoints, because in my experience, #1 and #2 of my views of a good strategy don’t often happen with the latter.

4. This doesn’t happen in all rounds, but doing things like kicking case for turns (when done well) are quite impressive for me and fall under what I would deem “good performance”

5. If you plan on reading a framework, actually understand the literature behind each of your framework’s warrants and use that to your advantage to weigh against other arguments.

What I mean by good weighing:

Good weighing is not me voting for you because your number is bigger than theirs. It’s giving me an understanding why I should turn to your arguments first. That also implies that you will be comparing weighing mechanisms as well. Because telling me you win on one metric while the other team wins on another brings me back to square one, where I’m back to being forced to pick and choose based on what I personally think.

I’ll always look at weighing first, then any offense connected to that weighing, then all other offense (if there is no other weighing, which would make me sad)

Speed:

1. Speed is fine with me, and I’ll yell clear if I need to. But, note that as the months go by I’ll be less in tune with high school forensics, so it might be to your advantage to not go too crazy. (Crazy means speech doc levels)
   
   

2. Slow down for tags
   
   

3. I don’t like flowing off docs
   
   

Tiny rant about extinction framing:

This is not an excuse to avoid any meaningful weighing by simply reading your 100 trillion deaths card over and over again. Still weigh. Also actually read the lit behind your links because some cards I’ve seen have been so outrageous and not in the good way.

**Random Things**

Cross is binding. I won’t be flowing, but I’ll be paying attention so don’t pull anything morally ambiguous.

If you want me to read evidence, tell me to call for it. With that said, if it's irrelevant to the bigger picture of the debate, I won’t be reading it, and I’ll explain why in relation to the round in my rfd.

Postrounding is ok, I make mistakes. But note that my decision was also impacted by what has happened in the round, so ideally we could avoid this situation. If there was a game changing piece of weighing or delink that should’ve given you the win, you should’ve been making it clear in the backhalf.

**Prog**

Theory: I’ve run and debated against theory a decent number of times, and I’ve got to say it isn’t my favorite. Most rounds turn into the same thing over and over again with similar-ish standards that just end up going in favor of the team that has the most experience with theory to begin with. It’s also frankly quite clear that a majority of teams that run theory don’t do it for the sake of “spreading norms” or “prioritizing education,” rather they see it as a way to pick up rounds, so forgive me if my eyes roll to the back of my skull.

In addition, the notion that theory checks back against ad hominem, in-round abuse is absurd. If someone says something problematic and offensive about me in a round, the last thing I’m thinking about is how to format their violation into a shell and taking prep time to prepare an off for my next speech.

With that said, if you feel uncomfortable in the round, don’t hesitate to email me with my email above, and I will stop the round.

No Friv theory

Kritiks: I only ran two kritiks (neo-colonialism/intersectional queer futurity) in my time debating, and although they were quite fun to learn about and read, I will be the first to acknowledge that I barely knew what I was doing. I know about kritiks in concept and understand their function and format, but in practice, the lines become blurred for me. With that said, I find that critical literature raises a lot of interesting questions, especially if they discuss a cause you are particularly passionate about, so be my guest if you want to run it, I’d love to engage with you on the subject matter, just note that I might not evaluate the round as formally as someone proficient on the matter.

Hi,

I am relatively new to judging, though have been familiar with Debate for some time. Please plan to speak clearly. Make your important points clear. Respect your opponent team. Also, please track your own time and opponent's time.

thanks,

Madhav

Background:

-2 years in Public Forum Debate in Ohio

-Qualified for State Tournament both times

-Email: ellen.cheng@emory.edu

Judging Preferences:

-I judge off the flow

-I can handle fast speeds of talking, but please enunciate and speak clearly

-I value respect in the round. Don't be condescending, rude, or interruptive

-I do not flow CX. If you need to, include your CX point in your speech

-Off-time road maps are appreciated. Please signpost as well.

-I will only disclose when it's allowed

-Please keep track of time by yourselves.

-You may only run theory if the other opponent understands/runs theory as well

How I Make My Decision:

-I will vote for the team that weighs the best and also explains their weighing

-Please make sure your arguments interact with your opponent's arguments. If arguments do not interact, I will consider that contention a wash

-If you don't flow your argument through summary to final focus, then I will not use your argument in my final deliberation

-No theory. I don't understand it

Notes:

-I usually don't call for evidence, will only do it if necessary

I am a lay judge, so no spreading, k's and theory please.

Overall, I want to see clash, but please be polite in round. I will buy your arguments if they are logical and make sense even if you don't have evidence to back it up. That being said, use evidence when you can.

Please do impact calculus when possible, but explain ideas thoroughly, I will not make connections for you.

Most importantly, speak clearly, explain your ideas well and have fun!

Golden Rule: Be nice to your opponent. Not too aggressive, not mean, treat each other with respect. If I see you are not being nice, I will lower your speaker points.

Also, a quick preface to this paradigm. I know it seems scary that it's so long, and I'm not here to intimidate you, I just find it fun to have a long paradigm full of references and humour, in an effort to lighten the situation (and make me look more knowledgeable HAHA). If this is scaring you, I promise that is not my intent; I'm not a scary guy (or at least, I try not to be lol). Now, read on :)

A Brief TL;DR Of This Excessively Long Paradigm

Nah, no TLDR. It's your round, make sure you read and understand everything, and please ask me if you don't. I suggest listening to Writer in the Dark by Lorde while you read this.

A Tad About Me

Hey, I'm Vivek! I'm currently a college student, and previously served as PF Captain for Mountain View-Los Altos Speech and Debate (los altos >>). I'm a massive Taylor Swift fan (like my top played artist in 2020 AND 2021 oop), which makes me sound very basic, I'm aware. In my free time, I enjoy watching TV, going on car drives, eating, spending time with friends, etc. I'm excited to see y'all debate (I may scroll through Reddit if I'm bored, jkjk); below is a (very) comprehensive paradigm on what you should be doing to tailor to my preferences.

Also, my pronouns are he/him.

Lying

Look..... just don't lie. I used to have a whole paragraph here about not lying, but honestly, if you've made it this far, you know how bad lying is. If you're going to win, do so the right way.

Spreading

Do not.

Signposting

Do! I need to know where to flow.

Off-Time Roadmaps

Oh god yes please. So helpful.

Crossfire

Just answer your questions well and ask good questions. Don't give like super long answers, because that wastes the crossfire time for me and your opponents. If you want to elaborate, do so in your upcoming speech. At the same time, I don't flow crossfire, so even if you don't do so great, that will only be reflected in speaker points, not in my ballot.

Framework/Standard

If you do not list a framework, I will use your opponents'. Please list one, or you may end up regretting it.

Impacts

This is important, list your impacts, it helps me know who is helping the most people in the rounds. It doesn't necessarily need to be quantified, but it could be helpful for magnitude weighing.

Weighing

Taken from the paradigm of Daniel Fernandez.

Don't just make arguments and respond to your opponent's arguments; invest time to explain why the arguments you make the matter more than the arguments your opponent makes. The earlier you start and the more often you bring up your weighing, the better!

One note on weighing: I would advise teams against saying that their arguments are more likely than their opponent's arguments because the strength of weighing comes from the ability to accept your opponent's argument as true and still win the debate by demonstrating why your own argument matters more. When you argue that your argument is more probable than your opponent's, you put the added burden on yourself to win their case because you need to win a reason why their argument is not true or improbable. You should always seek win-win the debate by winning the fewest amount of arguments.

Extend

Extend your cases and refutations all the way through Final Focus so I know you didn't drop anything! If you drop something, I probably will not consider it in my final delegation. I once lost an eliminations round at Berkeley because I didn't extend one point in summary :( ......so, extend!

Speed/Pacing

I'm fine if you want to go fast, just don't go super-duper spready fast (spreading = bad. sry policy and LD!). Also, have a constant pace, don't speed up and slow down - time management!! Plus, speak clearly! If I can't understand you, then I might drop your point by mistake!

Arguments

Just don't be offensive, and also run creative arguments! Feel free to run squirrelly arguments. Plus if you make me laugh (yay!) I will probably raise your speaker points. :)

Evidence

Some may dislike me for this (myself included), but for evidence, I follow Charles Schletzbaum's preferred rule - NSDA Public Forum Rule #7.1B. In accordance with this rule, please have the author's name and date, along with their agency (ex. for Adrian Jones from the Mayo Clinic in 2013 should become "Jones 13"). I may call for cards, so be ready for that, and don't have any sketchy/shady evidence (debate math discussed below).

Debate Math

Eh. I used plenty of sketchy debate math myself throughout my debate career, so I can't really fault you for this one. Just make sure it makes sense in context of the actual world, and that you have the statistics to back it up.

Speaker Points

Taken from the paradigm from Christian Jochi Vasquez :) :

My average is a 27 for the losing team and a 28 for the winning team. I think speaker point inflation is pretty ridiculous these days. A 30 to me means that there is nothing I can critique about your speech and it was perfect [Vivek's edit – look for ways to improve speaker points below]. Somethings that can help you with getting a higher score:

A) Voting issues, not just blind extensions. Talked about this a bit up above. I want to hear real weighing in the round, and that means actually applying some form of calculus to the arguments. I think categorizing arguments into broader issues allows you to do this. Feel free to prove me wrong though, and I mean that sincerely.

B) I like clever lines of questioning. In PF this is a little bit more difficult to do, since crossfire is double-sided but I think it can still be done. You're never going to get a good opponent to concede some major point by just blatantly asking if they're wrong. Rather, asking small questions that build up and setting a trap is not just strategic, but makes me impressed as a judge

C) Jokes. I like to laugh and smile, but lately a lot of rounds have done the opposite for me.

Fun ways to get better speaks (for a maximum of 29.25 points - the rest must be from your actual speaking) :)

Firstly, I'd like to preface this section by saying that I want to make debating less stressful for you, and more entertaining for me. Therefore, I include this section, because it's so much fun to hear y'all's amazing references and stuff - please try to include like at least one reference to a show/movie listed below, because it's fun for everyone and makes the atmosphere just generally more comfortable. As a debater, I have never had a judge give me the option to reference entertainment I like (and believe me, there have been a lot of situations where I could have) - I want to be the judge that gives you a creative platform, so while the debating aspect is still pretty serious, you can also have a bit of fun with it :)). (note: obviously try to be tasteful where you say it, not in a random sentence about poverty and starvation in some part of the world or something lol)

- Puns in speeches (but NOT in contention titles): +0.25 speaker points

- Incorporate the first line of "All Star" by Smash Mouth into your rebuttal or summary in a way that makes sense: +1 speaker point.

- Reference one of these (and it must be a clear reference, I suggest making analogies to situations. It cannot just "Aang said 'war' once and so did I," have something tangible. And feel free to ask me for a review on any of these, I will let you know if it's good or not): + 1 speaker point:

(*clears throat*)

ATLA; LOK (omg the ending, my heart <3); MCU (including Deadpool (1&2), AOS, Daredevil, MCU Disney+ shows; ps Daredevil is amazing); Breaking Bad/El Camino/BCS (but not s5 of bcs); DCEU (including The Flash, Arrow(s1), Doom Patrol, Gotham, Lucifer, Peacemaker); Michael Schur Universe (The Good Place, The Office, Parks & Rec, B99); Dan Harmon shows (Community, Rick and Morty); The Umbrella Academy; Star Wars (including Clone Wars, Rebels, Mandalorian, BOBF); most things Disney (ask for clarification); Disney Channel Shows! (GLC, DWAB, A&A, L&M, Jessie); Stranger Things; Kim's Convenience; NBA stuff in general; Any Harry Potter movie/books; Literally anything Rick Riordan; Crazy Rich Asians (one of my all-time fav movies, and the books are solid too); legit anything Taylor Swift (omg my fav, like....champagne problems? paper rings? illicit affairs?? we stan!! lmk if you want recs); also anything Ben Platt, he ruled my high school junior year (what is it with sad music and junior year? hmm); The Last Dance; Columbo; Once Upon a Time; New Amsterdam; Johnny English (any of the three films, but preferably #2 because that's my favorite oop); Die Hard (1,2,3,4); Feel Good (PG please); Bridgerton (I caved into the trend oop, and probably lost a few hundred braincells because of that); Rocky (1,2,3,4,5,6); Creed (1&2); The Karate Kid (I,II,III); Cobra Kai (ahh i love this show); The Queen's Gambit; You. Basically, you've got options here. It's an easy speaker point. Do it. Please. Make me laugh. I am starved for entertainment (and, yes, I see the irony).

- Rap your summary/final focus: 2 speaker points

Get 30 speaks 101

There are two ways to get a 30:

1. Roast your opponent's case. However, not just a simple, boring roast, it needs to be a really unique, brutal comment. Again, DO NOT attack your opponent personally in any way – I would never advocate for that. If you're going to attempt this, go for their arguments. Also, I decide whether your roast is 30 points-worthy.

Theory/Kritiks

Hmmm, theory and K's and similar stuff are very interesting, but I have no real idea on how to weigh them in context of the round lol. I completely understand Abigail Spencer's gender K, and do agree that is a problem in public forum; if such a situation (or other situations with similar severity) arises, definitely feel free to address it. However, don't run theory or a K just for the fun of it, as it will probably backfire on you. If there really is a legitimate reason to run the K or the theory, then of course I encourage it, but if not, then just don't.

Disclosure

Eh. As a competitor, I understand wanting a judge to disclose. Therefore, I will try my best to disclose; however, if I'm just not feeling it, I may not disclose, and that's no reflection on your abilities to debate, I'm probably just having my own personal reservations to doing so (which can and will be influenced by numerous external factors, not limited to the round).

Non-PF rounds

If I'm judging you in Parli, LD, or Policy, I probably have no clue how to judge your round lol. Parli, I can get by (preferably keep the theory to a minimum). For LD I can also sort of understand, but weighing the morality aspect of the round can be confusing, as PF doesn't have anything like that. Policy..... I have no clue mate. I just hope that nobody assigns me policy rounds (hint hint tab).

Extra! (Though probably also helpful to read)

Don't title your contentions with something punny, like "Big Bad BRI" (from the BRI topic in Septober 2019). As much as I like puns, preferably not in your contention titles, as I want to know what the contention is about. If you can find other places to incorporate puns/jokes, then feel free to do so!

Also, please don't start your speeches with "I'd like to thank the judge for this round, I'd like to thank my opponents yadda yadda yadda" because it's so, so, so infuriatingly pretentious.

For all intents and purposes, I am a flow judge, but definitely also go for lay appeal lol. While I generally don't vote based on perceptual dominance, instead on your arguments, it does unconsciously factor into my decision (I am human, after all).

You can probably count on me having some background information on the topic, but it will definitely not be anything specific; now that I'm no longer debating, I don't have the proximity to these topics, and I'm not really staying updated about the Baltic States or the South China Sea in my free time.

I may have already added this somewhere, but I'll reiterate it here. I support sticky defense, but that is only if the evidence/argument has gone unresponded to by your opponents by the end of the round. Sticky offense is not a thing; please extend.

Watch this. It is so cute.

And at some point, please read this. It was written by a good friend of mine, and points out some very interesting points on debate itself. And on that note, please treat sensitive issues as sensitive issues.

I'm going to leave you with a life tip (which implies that I've lived long enough to experience much more than you all, which really isn't true, but whatever heh). Public Forum Debate is one of the most interesting, inclusive, and exhilarating activities I have ever done. I gained an entire second family here, one I conversed with daily and trusted with all of my heart. Public Forum will always hold a special place in my heart, and nothing could change that. That said, competition often transforms debate into a very toxic atmosphere to be in. Treat each other with respect and just be polite. While this is an important point for debate, the real world is a very toxic place as well - just try to be the nice person. Everybody is going through something: maybe their parents are having a divorce, their grandfather just died, they just broke up from a long-term relationship. Don't add to their internal problems. In rounds, debate your hearts out, but do not go for any personal attacks. Don't say anything that can be perceived offensive, including acting homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anything of the sort. At that point, I will drop you if you're actively contributing to debate's toxicity. Just be nice.

Note for 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 season of debate. Please do not sit with your partner, on the same screen, together (AKA not social distancing). Not only is it not safe for you and your partner, it's just annoying because there are so many teams that get disadvantaged for taking the proper safety precautions.

With that, good luck everybody.

Junior in high school, debating for 2 and a half years. I flow but that doesn't mean you can just dump information on me; go conversational speed.

email: spam58777@gmail.com

General Rules

Always use evidence and warrants to back up your claims. I will drop all claims that aren't.

Tech over truth within reason. If your opponents say "charter schools are racist" and provides me with a sensible link, I will consider that statement to be true until proven false.

However, I will drop ridiculous claims. For example, if they say "charter schools cause global extinction" and provide warrants, I will still drop it because that's ridiculous unless they give me compelling warrants backed by evidence.

Other than the boundaries I've provided, any claim that has been backed up and gone unresponded will automatically be considered true.

Ask one question and give one, short answer, Should take 30-sec max. If cross devolves into a shouting match I will stop flowing and dock speaks.

If your opponents concede anything in cross, point it out to me cause I won't count it in my decision otherwise.

You must create an email chain or evidence doc, I don't care which. You can choose to disclose cases.

I'm very strict w/ prep and if I think you're stealing any via stalling or searching for a card you read for like 3 minutes, I'll dock your speaks and maybe even change my opinion on my ballot. After all, stealing prep is cheating and I will give consequences. I'm not stupid.

Misrepresent evd and I will enjoy a very good paraphrasing/ misrepresentation theory and give you automatic 24 speaks, although I don't know if tab will allow me to go that low. (you card says something completely different/ you don't read their evd correctly)

Time yourselves and your opponents. I will also do it, but I'm not perfect, I may forget.

If the tournament doesn't decide for me, I will give debaters 4 minutes of prep.

I will disclose so please make it easy for me.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Speaks:

20: You have cheated (coach/ any other person in the room, teammates are messaging you blocks)

24: Light cheating (you steal prep/ don't read evd correctly)

25: drop out of debate

26: bad or should move to a lower division

27: normal

28: good team

29: Break team

30: I think you can win the tournament.

I make my speaks decisions based on three things:

1. word economy/ how well you speak

2. Structure (sign posting, impact interaction)

3. Strategy (collapsing, great turns, etc.)

These requirements' importance are unequal, with the most important starting from the bottom up.

I will follow this tournament's speaker point rules. I won't hesitate to mark using my own opinions, however.

Constructive:

Go conversational speed. I can't flow what I can't hear, after all.

Rebuttal:

Sign post or you will make the round very hard to judge, which will make me make mistakes. It's your job to make sure the judge will vote for you 100%.

I would like to see case interaction. For example, "Their 1st contention on economic collapse is delinked through our contention on job creation" or whatever. This makes the debate very clear and very easy for me to weigh, which is always very good for you.

Summary

Start to collapse, or I will dock speaks.

sign post.

Make sure you extend everything you want to use in FF, everything you don't mention will be dropped.

You have to extend link+impacts+ for me to evaluate it. It is highly suggested for you also to extend how your extensions interact with the opponent's case and what that entails, cause I won't let you do that in FF, b/c it's new.

I won't evaluate new offense in 2nd summary, your rebuttals should've been enough.

Defense is not sticky.

try not to extend new offense in 1st summary. I would prefer if everything was done in rebuttal. But that's just preference.

You can bring up new defense evd ONLY against new offense evd.

It'll be very good for you if you do impact calculus, like "we win on magnitude b/c of ABC" or, more simply, "their impacts are less/ less likely to happen/ less severe b/c ABC." This will only help me vote for you and give you some tasty speaks.

FF:

You should've collapsed onto one argument unless you started out with one argument. I will dock speaks if you try to go for everything.

Impact interaction is BIG in FF, so make sure you get that.

new stuff will be dropped, naturally.

make sure to spend more time on your case.

I would prefer voters b/c it makes it easier for me to vote, but as long as you have good speech structure you're fine.

If you make me laugh then +0.5 speaks lmao.

Hey all, I graduated from Mountain View High School in 2022 and octafinaled at silver TOC in PF

ask me for my email when making the email chain please

treat me like a techy flay

---if you're new to debate, read this:

I really like arguments that have clear warranting (why something happens / is true, not just stating that it is true even if it's from a card [unless it's a statistic about the status quo, like something being at some percent]) and I really like when you use magnitude / timeframe / probability to compare your case with your opponents. good luck and have fun!

---otherwise, general:

speed is fine just don't go Grand Prix on me, bring up important things from cx in speeches for me to flow it, I will almost always give an oral rfd so don't leave right when the round ends, wear whatever you want, off-time roadmaps are fine just make them quick, I will only write a few broad takeaways in the specific feedback sections for each team but if you want more feedback just ask me

---tech specific:

tech > truth unless your case is wildly squirrelly, if you do have a weird case there should be good warranting & I'll look at you funny & I'll be susceptible to probability weighing from your opponents but I'll rely on your opponents to call out your wack argument, pls signpost, pls extend, when extending arguments extend uniqueness/warrant/impact/implication/really key cards not just taglines, 2nd rebuttal must frontline, dropped defense is probably terminal and dropped turns probably conceded but your opponents have to a) bring that up and b) properly weigh it, no sticky defense, collapse in summary, numbers are awesome but I can go for any well-explained and well-weighed impact, implicate impacts/responses on opponent's case, when explaining link/impact turns b sure to explain why I should prefer the turn over the opponent's case, weighing is so awesome please do it ideally starting in summary, starting weighing in 2nd FF is too late, be comparative when you weigh, anything in final focus should be in summary, please please please have solid internal links into your impact / have a solid impact scenario, if i don't think either team has offense at the end of the round I intervene and do my own analysis probably on the narrative clash, card with warranting > no card with warranting > card without warranting > no card with no warranting

---

On another note, I would not recommend running progressive debate with me. In my experience, it makes debate less accessible to casual debaters as smaller/newer teams don't know how to respond, it makes opponents feel terrible for arguing against it, and it diverts attention away from learning about the (mostly) cool topics we get to explore in debate. That being said, I understand that sometimes topics aren't the best, so if you really have a strong desire to run theory/K's/etc and have a really good reason to, I will evaluate it. Just keep in mind I will be very lenient to your opponents if it is clear they have no idea what is happening and I will be easily persuaded by a substance > theory counter argument (especially if your opponents run no RVIs).

---speaks: definitions will scale with tournament, general case:

30: you're crazy, what kind of milk are you drinking

29.5: delivery very well done: inflection of voice, signposting, slowing on on key facts and when moving to a new side of the case, etc. overall very easy to follow and understand, the structure is clear and consistent

29: delivery pretty clean, few filler words or gaps in speech, appropriate tactical plays made, posts are being signed

28.5: understand well the role that each speech plays in the round, do well at fulfilling that role as well as setting up later speeches

28: you definitely get the gist of the purpose of each speech

27.5: you understand well how debate works and the purpose of each speech

27: catch-all score for some areas of improvement

-- ONLY VALID IF I AM THE ONLY JUDGE PRESENT --

+.1 speaks if you end both your speeches with "Badabap boomp, POW" instead of "Vote Aff/Neg"

+.2 speaks if you refer to your partner as "Scoob" instead of "my partner" and your partner refers to you as "Shaggy" for the duration of the round. To be clear, one of you should be Scoob and one of you should be Shaggy

+.1 speaks if you have a conversation with your opponents before the round starts about how their day is going / an interesting fact about them / what they do for fun aside from debate (cuz we're all here for fun and debate is so fun...right?...)

+.1 speaks if you include "bingo bango bongo" in your speech in a way that makes sense

I am a parent judge with about 6 years of experience judging Public Forum debates

Speak clearly and do not spread

I attempt to flow the round,it helps if you signpost your arguments

email (yes, include both): lpgarcia19@damien-hs.edu; damiendebate47@gmail.com

LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. I'm not very familiar with the topic.

My Beliefs:

Debate is good

Tech > Truth

Clarity above all else

Clipping is bad

My leanings:

Util good

I, as the judge, am a policymaker

Fiat is a good thing

A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev

There's not an excuse to avoid line by line

Topicality

I don't think fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.

Kritiks

If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm not a great judge for you. I can certainly understand your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I might understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with generic links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) I really do not want to hear Death Good, please do not do that in front of me.

K-Affs (Includes Framework)

I have written my disdain for K-Affs before. I am not going to just dismiss it; even as I maintain a reluctance to vote on them, I am not one you should just breeze through your blocks and force me to do work for you. I will be the first to admit that I need a lot of explanation as noted above in "Kritiks". Given all this said, framework is an uphill battle for the aff. I am not very sympathetic to generic "fairness bad/your education bad" impact turns; I think policy education is generally a good thing.

Theory

The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just a single conditional advocacy but I understand time skew. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that as I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.

Also, I doubt I'll ever vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior.

Disads

I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have. Straight turns are fun.

Impacts

I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and CWG. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.

I wont waste your time with this

he/they

if your comfortable with it id ask that everyone shares pronouns before the round starts or that we refrain from using gendered language and just use my opponent/opponents.

Im not sure exactly what ill be judging but i did every event besides policy in high school and im a debater at the collegiate level with UCSD. Speed is fine, Ks are fine, theory is fine, squirrely arguments like nuclear war are ok but your link chain better be flawless as im not inclined to vote for the magnitude outweighs probability argument for the 6 millionth time. Please signpost, please weigh at the end, be kind, be courteous, respect me and your opponents and just have a good debate overall. I dont give speaker points below 28 unless someone has been racist, sexist, xenophobic, ect...

My name is Beau Gillam, I am an Applied Economics and Management major at Cornell University.

Debate Experience: I am very well versed in Parli debate as well as World Schools. I did a little policy and LD but it wasn't my specialty. I do have a solid understanding of public forum as well. But I would be wary of trying to incorporate extremely advanced tactics as they might be above my skillset (just to be transparent with y'all).

Preferences: I would prefer if debaters didn't speak too fast. I understand you guys have a lot to say just try and stop yourselves from getting out of control. As far as tactics, you are here to try and win a debate so I want to see you be creative and utilize the tools you have to do so. That being said, try not to get too lost from the actual motion up for debate. You are mainly there to learn and to have fun so keep that in mind.

I can't wait to see what you have to say! Looking forward to this tournament.

4th year on the Circuit

Add me to the email chain: adityavir01@gmail.com

Straight from Amrit Sharma's Paradigm:

Tech > Truth (You can win an argument saying that the 1 + 1 = 3 if your opponent does not respond to it, I believe doing anything otherwise is judge intervention)

I require speech docs to be sent before constructive and rebuttal speeches

Frontline all offense in second rebuttal and defense on the arg ur going for (by all means frontline everything I think its a good strat)

Summary should extend defense

When you are extending responses on your opponents case please interact with their frontlines otherwise you're just wasting time.

No new weighing in second FF, very minimal new weighing allowed in First FF

IMPACT CALCULUS: this is what wins you debates. If you clearly explain to me and give warrants as to why your impacts matter more than your opponents, you're much more likely to win if they don't. Some common mechanisms include Probability, Magnitude etc.

Speaks:

+1 if you read cut cards in case

Auto 30 if you read straight from cut cards in both rebuttal and case

Progressive:

Shells: Familiar with most (Paraphrasing, Disclosure, TW), I can't judge a full-fledged theory debate nearly as well as others so run at your own risk

Kritiques: Not familiar at all, but will try my best

Other:

If you have any questions feel free to email me.

Be respectful and have fun!

Hi, I am a parent of an avid debater, and I am a scrupulous note taker. I always read up on the topic prior to judging, but explain things to me as if I am learning about it for the first time. I have an extensive history judging on the national circuit for PF. I like teams which have good evidence to support their claims. Try to tell me a story with your arguments about why your impacts matter in the first place. Links in your logical reasoning should be clearly explained, and I won't consider your impacts unless your links make sense. Also, if it is not in summary, then it shouldn't be in final focus. During Cross-X try be as respectful of your opponents as possible, and being respectful helps your speaker points. If you're going to turn your opponent's argument, make sure there is an impact. Also last but not least, weighing during summary and final focus definitely makes it easier for me to judge your round. Look forward to judging your round!

4 year varsity debater from College Prep. Graduated in 2020.

I evaluate the flow first, tech over truth.

I can handle speed - would much rather prefer a slower, clear speech to a faster, garbled speech (esp with the online format)

Terminalize your impacts!

Weigh the debate for me so I don't have to and you don't get mad when I "do it wrong".

Everything that's in Final Focus should have been in summary (unless it's responding to something new from second summary (which also shouldn't happen)

You'll get good speaks from me unless you really mess up.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round

I welcome any questions about my decision after the round.

email: gupta.abhimanyu@gmail.com

Hi! I'm a sophomore at Stanford and competed on the PF national circuit as College Prep HO for 3 years. Add me to the email chain please:

hhekmat@stanford.edu

tldr - I'm a pretty standard tech judge, w/ tech > truth, and simply put the more work you do for me, the less likely I am to make a decision that you disagree with!

Heads up, I know damn near nothing about the topic lol so please spell out acronyms the first time around and all that to make sure there aren't any leaps you're taking that I miss.

For non substance arguments (e.g. theory, Ks, etc) while I've seen a fair amount of rounds and find them super interesting, I don't have a lot of direct experience myself. Basically just a quick disclaimer to proceed with caution and make your advocacy very clear for me if that's the direction the debate is headed, and it should hopefully make for an interesting round!

Tech > Truth

Make sure you weigh your arguments vs your opponents'! It'll make things a lot easier for me and make it so I don't have to intervene with my own biases/opinions.

An argument has to be fully extended in both summary and final focus for me to vote on it. That means every step of the link chain along with the impact should be in the back half of the round! If you're speaking 2nd, you also have to frontline it in 2nd rebuttal (respond to their responses from 1st rebuttal).

To re-emphasize, extending warrants is critical. Don't just throw out card names and dates. In fact, I'd rather you have warrants than just naming the piece of evidence from earlier in the round. Final focuses should have both though.

(like I said above...) Frontline in 2nd rebuttal!!

I'll vote off the flow based on what's said in speeches (not in cross). If you get a concession in cross, point it out in speech.

Defense is sticky, you can still make my job easier by extending it anyways. If you do want to read it in rebuttal and bring up that it was dropped later, please point out that defense is sticky as you implicate it however you will.

I won't call for cards unless you specifically ask me to within speeches.

Once again (because this is particularly important), PLEASE WEIGH!! Not just the numbers and impacts, but also the warrants, links, etc. Tell me why your argument is more likely, more clear, affects more people, and/or needs to be prioritized for any other reason.

Time yourselves please.

I'm ok with mild speed but definitely rusty so I might miss some things on the flow (especially online considering technical difficulties)... aka proceed at your own risk.

Be respectful, don't say anything hateful or offensive, and fill your time; you'll at least get a 28 from me if you do those things.

Best of luck, and have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions before and after the round, and even reach out to my email way after if you want :)

General:

Senior at Damien.

Call me Alek, not judge. He/him/his.

Put me on the email chain- alekciriarte@gmail.com and please title the chain using this format: Tournament Name - Round X - Team 1 (AFF) v Team 2 (NEG).

Preferences:

Keep it simple and slow down on the arguments you would like to be heard.

Avoid interrupting one another in crossfire and be concise with your answers for the sake of time.

Speak firmly, confidently, and clear.

Feel free to utilize road maps, they make it easier for me to understand your links!

Miscellaneous:

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round.

Respect one another and have fun!

I am a parent judge who has been involved in debate for almost two years now. I am a lay judge, but I do flow. I don’t mind speed, as long as you speak clearly. Try to avoid spreading if possible. Please be respectful to your opponents: I am much less likely to vote for you if you are rude during the round. Good luck!

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

I did PF for Brophy for 4 years.

Feel free to let me know if there’s anything i can do to make the round more comfortable and safe. (egk32@georgetown.edu or FB message me)

Quick notes:

1. If you are the second speaking team and want to extend an argument, you have to frontline all responses on that argument in second rebuttal + if you don’t respond to turns on any argument, they are conceded.

2. Make sure every arg you're reading has warrants AND extend them pls

Weighing: Just make sure its comparative between args + it starts early (second rebuttal, first summary)

Sidenote: Most times, grandcross is really useless so if both teams agree to skip it for like a minute of prep instead, I'm cool with that

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

I like people debating with solid/strong points supported by the evidence. I would like to see people with passion in their debate, but does not encourage bullying other teams. I look for people making clear/concise statements with clear articulation. I try to be diligent in tracking/flow of contentions and arguments.

All the best!

I am a parent judge. Speak up clearly and avoid using technical jargon.

I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon.

cl4319@columbia.edu

Debate should always be fun, educational, and safe - please ask questions before/after the round if anything is unclear. I'll always disclose and feel free to ask or say something if you disagree with my decision.

Everything needs to be warranted

Summary is the most important speech in the round - collapse, extend links and impacts, frontline, and weigh. Any offense and defense needs to be in summary and FF (because summary is now three mins, defense is not sticky). Basically I should be able to listen to only summary and FF and make the correct decision.

I think spreading, Ks, theory, and other prog args are overdone in PF and defeat the purpose of the event. I will evaluate them but I'm generally predisposed to not vote for them; I also never ran them as a debater so I'm not the most familiar at judging them.

Have fun!

Now that I have judged 100+ debate rounds, you can think that I (mostly) know what I am doing.

Please clearly organize your contentions (for example) using a numbered theme, let me know exactly what the evidence is and what the links are from your evidence to your contentions. Also weigh your impact well, not only what could happen but how probable it would happen. It would be best if you could weigh your marginal impacts, that is, how much impacts can be attributed to your contention.

When you repudiate your opponent's contentions, I'd appreciate critical reasoning, such as what are exactly the logical flaws and/or why their evidence is weak. Remember, no matter how ridiculous an argument is, it will stand if you don't point out why it is wrong.

Don't use scare tactics. Don't tell me the world will end tomorrow if I don't vote for you :-)

I take notes but not as detailed and organized as your coaches train you to do. I don't take notes during crossfire. Include whatever you get from the crossfire in your speeches. Make crossfire purely Q&A. Don't try to make your questions like speeches.

Keep time yourselves so that I don't have to interrupt. Being able to keep your own time shows how disciplined you are in the debate. Nonetheless, I will run a timer as well and will give you a 10 sec grace period before I interrupt.

Finally, stay calm, respect your opponents, and avoid using any provocative or condescending language.

Have fun debating!

I am a college student. I did PF for 4 years previously.

Important points for me:

Speed: I'm okay with most speeds, but don't speak super fast and then end up with an extra minute at the end of your speech. Take your time, don't rush through it just for the sake of it. Also, please don't spread.

Timing: Please don't go over time. I will let you finish your sentence if it happens. However, if you end up going 30+ seconds over, I will stop flowing.

Crossfire: Please be polite. If you cut people off or yell at people or are just being generally really aggressive, I will not hesitate to drop your speaker points. Also, please do not spend half of cross sharing your ideas.

(PF specific) Theory/Ks/Progressive Arguments: I don't prefer these. Only run if warranted by something that happens in the round.

Don't be afraid to call something out or ask questions in the middle of the round. I want everyone to be able to have fun. Good luck on your rounds!

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

some ppls paradigms are getting too long...

• high school PF debater, flow judge (competed for 4ish years)
• Don't spread, I'll let you know if it gets super unclear.
• have your evidence prepared in cut cards
• not a huge fan of theory and Ks so don't run them unless you warrant them really really well. (not really applicable to novice)
• i will not flow cross (or listen that closely) - but be nice (ad hominem attacks are a big no). let ur opps answer ur questions and also give them questions
• Please signpost, off-time roadmaps would be greatly appreciated if you stick to them.
• I'm mostly tech over truth, but be reasonable.
• Please weigh!!

Bonus things to boost speaks/make me like you

• throwing in a cool metaphor
• quoting famous people/movies/songs
• correctly identifying a logical fallacy made by your opponents
• being funny/making jokes/doing anything to lighten the mood

email chain: ayangnath@gmail.com

TLDR: I primarily debated Public-Forum in high school, so I am familiar with debate, but I am not a good judge for topicality/tricks/kritiks. If these arguments are read, I need extensive judge instruction and explanation. I will only vote for arguments I understand and can explain back to you!

Policy Arguments: I understand these and am comfortable judging these debates. Impact turn and DA vs Case debates are debates I enjoy very much. Counterplan debates I understand, but complex process counterplans (e.g. Consult, Delay, etc) I don't understand so please do not read them.

Kritiks: I am familiar with simple identity kritiks (e.g. Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism), but it's been a while since I've debated them. Explaining your theory of the world concisely and clearly is important for me voting for you. Please do impact calculus, root cause, and framing debate to win reasons for why the kritik outweighs or comes before the case.

Topicality/Theory: I'm not good at judging these debates and do not handle theory debates very well. That being said, I'm familiar with common theory arguments (e.g. conditionality, PICs, RVIs). Disclosure and paraphrase theory are fine.

Last but not least, remember to have fun!

I am currently a sophomore at Emory university. I debated public forum at the quarry lane school for four years.

tech > truth

please add me to the email chain - snellian@student.quarrylane.org. Send speech docs before each speech !

I'm fine with speed, but make sure you're clear. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Any offense you're going for in final focus should be extended completely (uniqueness, links, impacts) in summary. Cross is binding but doesn't matter unless it's in speech. Please collapse !

Start weighing as early as possible and definitely focus on comparative weighing (both link and impact level if possible), when I'm looking at the arguments, I'll start with the one with the strongest weighing.

Always be respectful towards your opponents. I won't evaluate arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Lastly, debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)

Regarding prog arguments, I have little to no experience with Ks (I’ve debated a K maybe once or twice). If you want to read a K, I think it’s super interesting but I probably won’t be able to evaluate it well and am not a great judge for that. I’ve debated/read theory before, and have more experience with it than Ks, but I’m not extremely experienced with it either.

Good luck and feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions.

4-year varsity debater from College Prep. Graduated in 2021.

I evaluate the flow first, tech over truth.

I can handle most speed - would much rather prefer a slower, clear speech to a faster, garbled speech (esp with the online format)

Everything that's in Final Focus should have been in summary (unless it's responding to something new from second summary (which also shouldn't happen))

Weighing

Weigh the debate for me so I don't have to and you don't get mad when I "do it wrong".

The earlier you weigh the better.

Please make your weighing comparative, well warranted, and clear.

Pre-Reqs, short circuits, and link ins >>>

Progressive Debate

I will evaluate and weigh any argument. That being said, please make it very clear to me because I have less direct prog experience.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round

Good Luck :)

my email is amyoco@bu.edu reach out if you have any questions or concerns

email: sanjitap2003@ucla.edu, pronouns: she/her

hello! i debated in pf at dougherty valley for 3 years (doughtery valley kp and dougherty valley rp) and am now a sophomore at ucla. i'm a flow judge that will buy basically anything, but above all please make sure you are inclusive and kind.

- first: make sure you are reading content warnings with opt outs for sensitive topics (if you are unsure if a topic requires a content warning, better safe than sorry). if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory in any way i will drop you regardless of the content of the round.

- tech>truth, i love unique arguments that bring new perspectives to topics, i will not call for any evidence regardless of how sus i think it is if you do not prompt me to (i think that's intervention) HOWEVER, if i do call for the evidence and it is terribly misrepresented, i reserve the right to drop you

- second rebuttal should frontline, at least all of the offense, if you don’t i consider it dropped

- no "offensive overviews" in second rebuttal please, pf speech times were not built for this, if you are reading turns they must be implicated when you read them, i will not buy new implications into second summary and final

- i love love love weighing and think it's the best part of a debate round! please do it as early as second rebuttal. PLEASE please collapse on ONE argument in second rebuttal

- speaks are started at 28.5, i think speaks are arbitrary and allow biases to creep into judging so i will only go up based on strategic decisions made in the round or if you make me laugh , not speaking style

- you can talk as fast as you want but if i say clear 2 times and still can't understand you i'll stop flowing

- i prioritize WARRANTS over an evidence throwing party any day. good analysis > unwarranted stats

- i really really don't like when people get angry and mean during debate rounds. there is no reason to be mean over a round you won't remember in a few weeks.i will tank your speaks heavily for this :(

- summary and final should mirror each other and extend your case and impact. i will not vote off of it if the full argument and impact are not in both speeches. 

- i have experience with theory arguments but if i feel even slightly that you are reading the argument to win ballots, not because there is abuse, i will not vote on it. i have slightly less experience with Ks but i can understand and judge most if you explain the warrants and framing.

above all, have fun! let me know if there's anything i can do to make the round more comfortable for you :)

About Me

I'm a junior at College Prep and this is my first time judging. I will flow the round and vote on the flow. I will disclose if you ask. Add me to the email chain or send me memes: gpanesar@college-prep.org

Spreading

Send me a speech doc.

Signposting

Please.

Crossfire

Don't give super long answers, because that wastes the crossfire time. I don't flow crossfire, but I do listen to it. Don't harass each other.

Impacts

This is important, list your impacts, it helps me know who is helping the most people in the rounds. It doesn't necessarily need to be quantified, but it could be helpful for magnitude weighing.

Weighing

Please weigh. Impact Calc is epic.

Extend

Extend your cases and refutations all the way through Final Focus! If you drop something, I won't vote for it.

Speed/Pacing

Go as fast or slow as you want; send me a speech doc if you plan on speaking fast. Speak clearly! If I can't understand you, then I might drop your point by mistake!

Evidence

I may call for cards, so don't mis-cut evidence.

Speaker Points

You're never going to get a good opponent to concede some major point by just blatantly asking if they're wrong. Rather, asking small questions that build up and setting a trap is not just strategic, but makes me impressed as a judge.

Jokes. Say something funny. Rap your speech

Theory/Kritiks

Theory and K's are interesting. Explain it well.

Good luck; have fun.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Add me to the email chain: veedita.pirta@gmail.com

General things

1. I will vote for the team that has the best link into the best weighed impact in the round. <= MOST IMPORTANT 

2. WEIGH. I cannot stress this enough. Tell me WHY I should prioritize your links/impacts/evidence over your opponents'. If you don't, I'll do the weighing myself (form what I see on the flow), and you won't be happy with the result.

3. Warrant everything (links, weighing, etc.). I'll flow unwarranted claims but I won't be happy about it and have trouble buying it.

4. Signpost clearly. If I don't know where to flow it, then I'll put it wherever I want, and you don't want that.

5. Everything in final focus MUST have been said in summary. (Exception : Dropped defense can go straight form rebuttal to FF)

6. All advances that you make in cross MUST be said in speech for me to flow it. (ex. if you get your opponents to make a key concession in cross, you have to bring it up in speech for me to consider it)

7. You may frontline in 2nd summary. HOWEVER you may not bring up offensive new arguments (in other words: no turns or extensions to case)

8. I'll probably disclose if I feel like it, and if the tournament allows it.

9. I will try my best to be a FIAT judge. That being said I will dock your speaks if you read something that is straight up inaccurate, misinterpreted, etc. (args with incorrect application of economic principles, I'm looking at you)

I did 2 years of circuit debate pretty competitively.

I try to be flow, only two things kinda different about me:

1. Terminal defense exists to infinity. If you never frontline an argument your opponents defensive ink still exists on my flow. Them not extending responses is not an excuse. Extensions of terminal defense are never necessary, just appreciated. You will never win an argument if defense against it is dropped.

2. I care more about warrants than impacts. Weighing an impact is irrelevant at the point that you do not win the links into the impact. If there is clash at the warrant level make sure to weigh links and actually explain to me why your warrant should be preferred to that of your opponents.

I'll evaluate any claim backed up in evidence or logic, run crazy shit, it's fun

- I'm a high school PF debater

- Please don't spread, if I can't flow it I'm not counting it

- If you're rude I'll tank speaker points, if you're offensive/sexist/racist I'll drop you

- I vote off evidence before rhetoric - Cite the evidence

- Make sure to warrant and explain, if you don't explain how the argument works I can't vote on it

- Anything said in Final Focus must have been brought up in Summary or I won't vote on it

- If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round

- Stay calm and have fun :)

Speed is fine but I'd prefer you didn't spread

You should extend warrants for every arg you want offense off in every speech

Weighing needs to be comparative

I don't flow cross, if something important was brought up, mention it in a speech

she/her/hers

hi! i did nat circuit pf at dougherty valley and am now a sophomore at usc

PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

please let me know (email, messenger, before/in round) if there is anything i can do to make the round more accessible & safe for u

i've barely debated progressive arguments. if you think there's a huge abuse in the round & theory is necessary then go for it, i’ll try my best to evaluate it. same goes for Ks

read content warnings with an opt out if you're discussing anything sensitive i'll be very upset if you don't + i'd be very happy to hear trigger warning theory after. if ur not sure what constitutes a sensitive topic, totally ask me before the round

i'm cool with speed but i can't handle spreading - u cld send me a doc but i hate flowing off those & i probably won't be able to copy everything from it so just slow down

find ur cards in less than 2 mins or i'll drop ur speaks

you should frontline (at least what ur going for + turns) in second rebuttal

defense isn't sticky

signpost!! or else i'll miss stuff

i'll only call for evidence if you tell me to (pls make sure ur evidence is cut properly and says what u say it does)

make sure ur weighing is comparative. i think rebuttal is the best time to start weighing

i have no tolerance for overly aggressive or rude behavior in cross. if ur worried that u might be being mean, u probably are. i'll happily tank speaks/drop a team if they exhibit problematic behavior or are excessively rude

i presume first (plsss never make me presume)

i don't think i'm a very tech-y judge. i prefer slower debate with a good narrative & good clash over a fast debating dumping a bunch of arguments.

don't aggressively post-round (the ballot is literally already submitted) but pls ask any real questions u have about my decision & any questions in general, i'd love to help

debate is a game, have fun!! lmk if you have any questions :)

Hey yall, I'm Yvo (she/her)! I'm a current PF debater and I'm also a coach for middle schoolers.

Update for 2020-2021

Don't break COVID guidelines to debate with your partner. It's dangerous, unfair, and generally a bad move. I'm going to vote on 6 feet theory pretty easily.

Speaker points

My usual score for a relatively clear, effective speaker is a 28. Signpost, especially for first speakers. Be clear, loud, and concise, and you'll be good. If you're excessively rude, cursing people out, racist/sexist/transphobic/anything, you will be dropped. I've never given below a 27, but I will go as low as possible for offensive speech.

How to get 30 speaks

I play fast and loose with speaker points, i.e. they don't matter to me, so why not have fun! There are lots of ways to get 30s from me, but here's a short list:

- Puns (the worse the better)

- Snacks! (no pressure on this one)

- Incorporate the first line of "All Star" by Smash Mouth into your rebuttal or summary in a way that makes sense

- Clearly reference a TV show, movie, musical, or singer (list of things I'm a fan of is at the bottom)

- Rap your summary or FF

Spreading (anything over like 800 words)

I'm in high school, I'm perpetually sleep deprived, and I'm a slow writer. Don't spread.

Crossfire

I'll listen to your cross, but I won't judge off of it if you don't bring up damning points in your speech. You don't have the obligation to respond to anything brought up in cross during your next speech unless they extend it through their speech.

I do absolutely notice when yall are cutting off your opponents and not letting them answer. I will not hesitate to drop your speaks, even if you win the round. This is mostly for the toxic male debaters but I'm equal opportunity on this one.

BE RESPECTFUL!!! Don't yell, cut each other off, or be rude. Don't try to make your opponents look stupid. If you've got the answer/info you need, back off.

Arguments

Run whatever you want. As long as it makes sense, isn't overtly offensive or problematic, I'm good with it. Explain your links well, make sure your arguments are unique, and talk about your impacts in all your speeches. I'll call for cards at the end if I think I need to, or if one team has a serious request for it. I don't want to vote for an argument I don't understand, so rare args need a good logical flow to it. Be clear on uniqueness.

I like moral arguments over big stick impacts, as long as there's evidence for it. So prioritizing impacts for certain populations that aren't prioritized for traditional debates.

Theory/Ks

I'm good with it, but keep in mind the skill of your opponents. Don't be abusive. I'll still judge on frivolous theory, but please note I hate disclosure theory and think it's a waste of time. I prefer theory related to issues I can solve in the round (ie, dropping the debater fixes the problem).

I'm not as familiar with Ks as I am with theory, so just explain the argument well. Same goes here, I prefer issues that can be solved in round.

Links

Make sure they're logical, explained clearly, and not dropped in later speeches. You must win the link-level debate before I'll even consider your impacts. That is, if your opponent turns you or delinks you, explain why they're wrong before jumping to "we outweigh."

Impacts

Please do good, clear weighing. Tell me why your impact is better/worse than theirs. Tell me why poverty is more important than the economy. Even if it seems clear why your impacts outweigh, you still have to explain it. Card your impacts.

Other Stuff

Second rebuttal should frontline, but second summary can bring up new frontlines. If second summary does new frontlines, then they can't complain if first ff addresses those.

Defense isn't sticky or terminal. If you read a turn on them and then don't bring it up in summary, I assume you concede it and they don't have to respond to it anymore.

Case doesn't need to be extended in rebuttals, but it does have to be fully extended in summary or I drop whatever you don't read.

I try not to intervene as much as possible since the round should speak for itself. However, if I feel like it's needed or I just have to (for very messy debates), I'll note it in the RFD and explain why.

If you ask, I'll probably disclose if you give me a minute to collect my thoughts. I'll always submit my ballot before disclosing, so if you get argumentative it won't fix anything.

Welcome to the part where I tell you all my favorite TV shows and stuff:

The Office, Parks & Rec, Brooklyn 99, Good Place, Umbrella Academy, anything from the MCU, Kim's Convenience, Hamilton, Dear Evan Hansen, anything from Harry Potter (books or movies), Real Genius, Some Kind of Wonderful, Yuri on Ice, Skam, the Politician, Feel Good, Great British Baking Show, She-ra, Conan Gray, Carry On (30s for the whole team if you do this one)

Email: 22DhruvS@students.harker.org (add me to the email chain/google doc)

Judging:

- Tech > Truth

- Please signpost (Tell me where on the flow you are)

- Please number responses.

- Please focus on warranting your arguments. Quality of args > quantity.

- Please weigh (Tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponent's arguments)

- I'll listen to cross but it won't affect my decision unless you bring it up in later speeches (it will affect speaks).

Speaks/Other:

- Be confident and assertive but not rude during cross

- Don't steal prep time (Don't prep while your opponents are sending you evidence)

- Don't lie about evidence (If you do, your speaker points will drop)

Please ask me before the round starts if you have any questions about my judging philosophy.

Hi,

I am new to judging, and I am a lay judge. I will try my best to judge fair and well during the competition. Please speak clearly and don't spread. Have fun!

I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly. Keep your own time. Stay away from overly technical, advanced debate jargon. Emphasize your important contentions/points in every speech. I always try my best to be fair.

Please do not request to reveal the outcome. I will post it on the ballot after analyzing the participants' discussions.

I am a parent judge, speak slowly and clearly. Avoid technical jargon.

Hey y'all! I am currently a junior debating in PF at Dougherty Valley. I've done PF for three years and did some policy as well. Here's my email if you want to add me to the email chain : owensspargo@gmail.com

For Western JV: went to a tournament on the topic so my topic knowledge is pretty decent

tech>truth

speed

I tend to speak pretty fast so speed is fine, just not spreading. Since we are online, if you choose to go very fast though you should be providing a speech doc for everyone in the round to accommodate for our current setting.

weighing

Strategy wise, weighing in second rebuttal is something I definitely recommend. After second rebuttal, weighing should be in every speech no matter what. I would prefer if all weighing in final focus is in summary, but I won't vote you down if you read new weighing in final focus. BUT carded weighing must be read in summary, not final focus to give your opponents adequate time to respond.

Please do comparative weighing. I don't want to hear that your argument outweighs on magnitude, tell me why it does. Nuanced weighing outside of the conventional weighing mechanisms are also very cool (this includes meta weighing aka weighing between mechanisms)

Don't read a turn or DA without weighing, or this is pointless. For example, when reading a turn tell me why your turn outweighs the case argument it responds to or I cannot vote off of it. Also don't read new implications off of turns in summary or final focus.

Weighing is essentially offense which means you should be responding to it. If weighing is conceded this also gives you a strategic advantage so keep that in mind.

Other stuff

I will only consider evidence if there is a warrant. A warrant without evidence will be evaluated over warrantless evidence.

In my opinion, it is most strategic to frontline in second rebuttal but I won't vote you down if you don't do so. Anything in final focus should be in summary I won't vote off of it if it's not.

I've only hit theory three times so I am not super comfortable voting off of it, especially if it is frivolous. However, if there is an abuse in the round that you think I should factor into my decision, feel free to run theory but make sure to explain it well. This same logic applies to Ks and topicality or other more progressive arguments.

Make sure to signpost to make my job easier. Link extensions should be in summaries and final focuses, as well as impact extensions. This isn't just reciting card names, I want to hear the narrative of your link chain as well.

Time your own speeches and prep. Don't yell during cross and be respectful, if you are being unnecessarily rude to your opponents I will drop your speaks.

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible; debate is meant to be an inclusive environment.

Let me know if you have any questions and good luck!

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

TLDR on my paradigm:

I debated my junior and senior year of high school in the West LA/OCSL circuits and graduated in '20; qualified to nats and STOC my senior year & coached for ~3 years after that. I am now pursuing a bachelors in Politics & Public Affairs & coaching the debate team @ Denison U.

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

-I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis w/ a value of human life if no other framework is read and first speaking if there is no offense on the flow.

-I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky (more on this below). I should hear extensions from the 1SS onward.

-I flow on paper, so keep it somewhat slow.

It has been quiteeeee a while since I've last judged, so please be gentle with my feeble mind.

If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged pre-fiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post-fiat judging abilities.

I have voted aff 69 times and neg 87 times (give or take), meaning an almost 56% neg bias. Yikes. I would guess the bias is from defaulting neg; I have since shifted to voting for first speaking in the interest of fairness.

Parli:

Debated parli mainly my junior year, I am versed in the event.

POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.

I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.

I am versed in topicality shells. I am receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow them down and dumb them down a bit.

I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.

I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.

LD:

I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge (quick reminder that I have the least amount of experience judging this event). Pre-fiat args are ok (and encouraged), but no guarantee I can evaluate them well.

PF:

What I like to see in round:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for; they can be paraphrased. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems in-round. Signpost.

Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality and integrity of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.

Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.

What I don't like to see in round:

Sloppy crossfires: Crossfire can be a great way to clear up confusion and communicate critiques of the other side. They can also be horrible screaming fits where nothing gets done and you both end up angry. Make sure you are having constructive conversation or I will drop speaks.

Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

Ad hominem: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd & tournament management will be notified.

My quirks:

Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.

Post-rounding: I encourage post-rounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges that drop you and say, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.

The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a minuscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.

Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.

Hello! I'm a freshman at Saratoga High and I've done PF for two years and LD for two years before that. I'll flow the round and I'll only vote off what's on my flow. I'm generally tech > truth unless there's your evidence is obviously wrong or biased. Please signpost and extend full arguments!! Also, if you're speaking super quickly I might not get everything down so speaking below 250 wpm is preferred. I'll start with 27 speaker points and go up or down depending on how well you speak and how respectful you are. Overall, just have fun and be respectful, and ask any questions you have before the round :)

My email: sarahrachelthomas67@gmail.com

Hey yall, I'm Elliot and I am currently a Senior in Quarry Lane. As of now I am working on bettering myself in all ways possible and will evolve through matches.

Email: elliotjtong@gmail.com (Please add me to email chains! It will be helpful in my decision)

Speed: I am okay with speed, however, if you are going to be going fast I ask that you send me a doc.

Be Respectful: this should be a given in debate rounds. I understand that it can get frustrating sometimes and it might get heated up, but there is a line. Please do not cross it!

PF

Note: A lot of the times I find that both myself and many other teams often go back and forth on a subject in a crossfire. Please try to keep this to a minimum as it takes away time from the round and really does not go anywhere.

Impact Calc: Your impacts are your most important thing in a round and can very well be what influences my decision in a match. Remember to explain your impacts and extend your evidence and links.

Paraphrasing: Paraphrased cases are okay with me, but I prefer carded cases as they are easier to follow and better structured.

Surprise me: I love seeing unique arguments! I'm the type of person that likes things that go against the "meta" as they bring new exciting possibilities.

hey y'all!

a little background on me: i was a public forum debater all throughout high school and captain of the team for two years, so i have a fairly thorough (though rusty) understanding of PF and a general sense of speech/other debate events. i have not debated in around 3-4 years now so take that as you will.

things i think are super important:

• signposting (and offtime roadmaps if you're planning on switching between flows) is a MUST!! it helps me flow arguments easier and allows for a more productive debate
• extend links and warrants through the whole round or else there's a 50/50 chance i lose them in my flow
• make sure to give me clear voters and weigh - the aim is for me to do as little work as possible. i hate intervening
• tech > truth
• i do call for cards. sometimes im just curious (it typically won't play into my decision) but if there's obvious violation of evidence ethics its a 20 L. and on this note, don't just throw cards at me and hope one of them sticks - tell me why they matter! give me good analytics!
• i know nothing about Ks and theory. i don't mind them and i am okay to evaluate off of them but you have to explain them super super thoroughly
• BE KIND in cross! that doesn't mean you have to let them walk all over you but be respectful and mindful of how you are treating your opponents

baseline is, make everything clear for me. don't assume i am going to remember big parts of your argument just because you think they are important!

definitely less important but i give 27.5-28 speaks on average. bonuses if you bring candy or snacks (i dont have allergies) and/or if you do something fun (e.g. incorporating merriam webster's word of the day). I think debate at its core is meant to be fun and educational so don't be afraid to get silly :)

sorry this got a little long but absolutely feel free to ask me questions before the round about any specifics! good luck!!

if you want to reach out to me for any reason my email is nataliekatran@gmail.com :)

I am a PF lay judge. Few notes:

-State your points clearly and concisely with researched backup arguments, avoid jargon

-Make sure to cite your evidence

-Please be respectful of your opponents

-Make sure to time yourself

-Will provide written feedback after the round, no verbal feedback

All the best!

I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.

Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.

I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.

Speech

It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).

Kritik

Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.

Etiquette

Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.

Speed

I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.

Other

I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.

Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!

• all offense in final focus must be in summary
• with the 3 minute summaries, both summaries have to collapse on and extend defense
• 2nd rebuttal should split
• Weigh - try to establish weighing early in the round, no new weighing in 2nd FF unless there was no weighing at all in the round; if both teams weigh, weigh weighing mechanisms
• speed - don’t go too fast, be understandable, but i’m generally ok with speed
• please signpost in the 2nd half of the round
• anything from crossfire has to be in speech for me to evaluate it
• be nice in cross
• i’ll probably evaluate any argument in the round unless it’s racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.
• i’ll call for evidence usually only if someone tells me to call for it
• don’t run theory

For Western/JV Champs:

Jade Wang-- she/her/hers, Dougherty Valley '22

Hi y'all, I'm Jade and I've been competing Varsity Public Forum for about three years.

Feel free to add me to the email chain: jadewang2004@gmail.com

I DO NOT feel comfortable evaluating theory, Ks, or any type of progressive argument and I frankly don't believe they have a place at this kind of tournament that is supposed to uphold an accessible learning environment to Novice/JV debaters. Please take this into consideration if I am judging you, unless you TRULY believe that a serious ethical violation has occurred and reading one of these arguments is the ONLY way you can resolve the issue.

General:

- Tech>truth, love squirrely arguments

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed

- Signpost as much as you can

- Offensive overviews in second rebuttal will be frowned upon

- Turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped, but I will still evaluate weighing in second summary

- Please don't miscut/misrepresent evidence... if I find out you are doing this I will disregard it from my flow and probably tank speaks

- No new in the two i will catch you!

- Sticking with a clear narrative + starting weighing early >>>

- Will dock speaker points if you are rude or overly sassy/passive aggressive to your opponents

- Behavior that is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. = lowest possible speaks + a loss

Most importantly, be nice and have fun! Don' hesitate to email me if you have questions or reach out on Facebook :)

Debate is fun (although I don't have debate experience). I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.

Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com

I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. In general tech > truth, but not overly tech > truth (which means that I have to think about the truth part if you read something ridiculous) if you read substance.

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 230 words per minute works). Otherwise, I can only listen but not keep up flowing. If I missed anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200 words per minute).

- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). Use cut card. Don't paraphrase. If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.

- Flow: I flow everything except for CX. Clear signposts help me flow.

- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments. Turns are even better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.

- CX: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.

- Weighing: it can be any weighing mechanisms, but needs to be comparative. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF (collapse please) and extend well.

- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is about 10 sec to finish your sentence but not to introduce new points). I often time your prep and CX.

Non-substance (prefer not to judge)

Ts: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading Ts, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.

Ks: no judging experience. Only spectated a few rounds. Hard to understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants to your ROB. If you really want to do Ks (which means you are at risks that I won't be able to understand well), do stock Ks.

Tricks: I personally don't like it - not aligned with the educational purpose of debate.

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

Hello, my name is Jing.

I am parent judge, and please speak slowly and clearly. Please try your best and avoid technical jargon. Please weigh your impacts, and explain your voters in simplest terms.

Thank you.

I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon

Speed - go for it. But you actually have to clear and comprehensible. I should be able to flow and understand without reading your speech doc.

First of first: Please speak clearly and loudly no matter how tired you are. Otherwise you may lose your game. I know it may be too ridiculous to believe. However, when there are threes judges in a debate, you may find I am the only judge who are trying his best to remember and note every sentence of your speech. Please, do yourself a favor, speak clearly and loudly to let the other two judges be aware of what you are talking about. I wrote this paragraph because I care about the fairness. (To editor, I hope you can understand my kindness and please do not delete my post, Thanks!)

Hi there, my name is Feng Zhang. Although I have limited judging experiences, I am a good learner for debating and judging. Since I got A grade for all STEM lectures from elementary school to graduate school, from China to North America, in Chinese and English, I like logical analysis and data analysis from history facts and economical facts. I am a flow judge and will take notes.

Overall note:

I think that the first crossfire part is the most important part in a debate. Each team will find the opponents’ weakness and ask the sharp questions to challenge each other. The intensive debate always starts from sharp questions. Please do not drop sharp questions and try your best to fight back from there.

Performance:

Debate is both a game and the real world. Bring real word issues to the forefront within debate rounds is extremely important. I hope it can creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. Hence, I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door.

Speak Points:

26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.

29-30=excellent

27-28.9=average

26-26.9=below average

Miaomiao (Mia) Wang

Experience: 0 (first time judge)

School affiliated: Dublin high school

- Register to be judge as a parent.

- like watching debates.

- work in environmental research.

- like reading

- like history and politics.

- like clear, analytical reasoning based on good quality data.

- logic and flow

- always listen to counter points.

Have fun debating.

I am open to any type of argument, but please give me a clear narrative.

I am not a fan of fast speed, but I will try my best to keep up.

I am keeping this short because of the deadline of filling up my paradigm. I will try to add more in the future, sorry.