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

I debated mainly public forum throughout high school at Pinecrest High School but have also competed in Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate. I debated in college at UNC as well before working for a law firm for two years, completing a masters and now beginning law school.

I will flow the round but will not flow any new information offered in final focus, the last point to offer new information is in the grand cross fire. My flows will be made available to competitors after the round, as long as the tournament allows it.

If there are highly contested cards or evidence I will most likely ask for the evidence card myself. Please be respectful in cross fire.

Evidence is important but just stating a card without tying into your impact and providing why it is significant isn't sufficient. I am fine with off time road maps but all framework will be on time. There is a 10 second grace period at the end of your allotted time, after that point I will cut you off.

I am fine with speed, but there is a difference between a fast cadence and speeding up throughout a speech because you are running out of time. If spreading, it must still be articulate so please do not unless you know you are able to do it well.

Competitors are always welcome to ask questions at the beginning of any round. I am happy to disclose and provide feedback after submitting my decision if the tournament allows it.

I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

Parent judge with 5 years of experience judging PF and some LD, both in-person and online. I'm not quite a tech judge, but am getting closer. For PF debates:

• Clearly lay out your contentions and subpoints upfront, and refer back to them during the round when you're providing additional evidence or warrants. Extend in your final speeches.
• I don't need an off-time roadmap, but feel free to provide one if you think it's helpful. Your speech should be organized well enough that I can tell when you're talking about your case or your opponent's, without an upfront roadmap to guide me there.
• I don't flow crossfire unless something new jumps out that I'm looking for later. In the next speeches, be sure to extend anything from crossfire that you want me to consider. Otherwise, you've made the decision that it's not important for me to hear or consider.
• Weigh, or at least tell me what the impacts are of your argument. Without that, I'm left without much of a "why" upon which to judge the round.
• That said, impacts should be reasonable and realistic. If nuclear war and 7 billion deaths really are a likely impact of your argument, that's fine. But I might give equal weight to an argument that would lead to 100K deaths from a conventional war that is more likely to happen in your future-state or the status quo. Or one that would increase the deficit by 5%, if that's more likely to be the outcome. And I definitely won't give much weight to a nuclear war impact from something like organic farming, or Medicare for All -- again, be realistic.
• If you want to run theory, go for it, but remember you're trying to convince me (not a professor or college debater) that your argument is better than your opponent's. Most theory cases don't do a lot for me, so you have a higher bar to clear if you're going to go that route.
• This goes without saying, but be polite and respectful to each other, and have fun. Even if it gets testy during the round, please congratulate each other at the end and shake hands (or fist-bump). I know the competitive aspect of this is real and can get intense, but remember why you're here.

Hello! I am parent judge with limited judging experience, but I have judged all four years that my son has done debate, so I do have good knowledge of the events. Try your best to speak clearly, and I will give high speaks.

Hey everyone! My paradigm is not that complex, but if you have any questions please ask before the round starts.

CCHS '20

NYU 24'

add me to the email chain: louisciano1@gmail.com

Simple Answer: I'm a flow judge who can understand circuit args if you over-explain them a tad more then you usually would.

Back round info:

I did LD for four years of high school mostly at the local level. I am from North Carolina so I am mainly used to traditional debate. I debated on the national circuit mostly for fun..

Speaks:

I'm generous. Don't be mean.

CX:

Clarification questions are ok, but not the purpose of Cross. I think cross can make or break a round because it shows who knows the material better. If someone is wasting your time, tell them to stop. If they don't I will notice.

Speed: ok with speed

prep-time:

Cards: Prep starts when they show you the card. You have to run the clock when you get the card.

Questions: It's ok to ask questions during prep, but do it more for clarification than anything, I'm not going to flow these, so don't be like "my opponent said this during prep". Also, make sure both of you are ok with it before the round starts.

Framework:

I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. I basically only ran util in high school, so if you have a really confusing framework you might want to warrant it a lot (sorry). That doesn't mean only run until. Please mix it up just make it good.

Arguments:

warrant your arguments. So many people just spit out a bunch of random evidence without a warrant. If you do this, I will give it little credibility and won't take it as super good evidence. If your opponent doesn't call it out, that still doesn't mean you win the ballot.

Theory:

I am not super familiar with theory, so it might be a little hard for me to evaluate it. That being said if there is clear abuse, run it, and warrant why. I will vote off of theory if I think you used it correctly. If you are going against a traditional kid don't run theory to just win the round. I will vote off of it, but I won't give you high speaks.

K Debate:

I never ran K's in high school, but I really like them. That being said, Please make sure the K is topical and not just some generic K. When I see that I see someone being lazy. Don't be lazy and write original arguments. Again, not super familiar with K's, but I will do my best to evaluate them.

Phil:

I'm pretty familiar with it, but if you say someones name don't expect me to have read all their books. Again just make it clear for me.

If you have any other questions, please ask.

I competed in high school speech and debate all four years back in the 1990s and have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for the last eight years.

Well reasoned arguments and high quality evidence are more convincing to me than twenty evidence cards- quality not quantity please! Speech and Debate is fundamentally an oral communication event and if I can't understand you your arguments can't persuade me.

Although NSDA rules allow citing sources as "Jones 2020", if I need to weigh competing evidence, knowing that "Jones 2020" is from The Washington Post instead of Wikipedia is important.

If you can't find the evidence in 30 seconds, we will move along- Organization is part of the preparation for this event.

Learning how to organize your thoughts quickly and how to stay cool under pressure/cross examination is a terrific life skill- this is an amazing activity and will help you in your later professional life no matter your high school win-loss record.

I debated PF for 4 years in high school, some nat circuit tourneys but pretty lowkey

River Hill '20 Duke'24 (GTHC)

I miss debate a lot :( Enjoy it while it lasts.

Speed is fine as long as it's not Policy speed (I spoke way too fast anyways).

I like to see good clash. This means responding to rebuttals (for second rebuttal I do like to see a bit of frontlining, though not required), not extending through ink, not just simply stating the author of a card (I probably forgot it already) but also explaining what said author does, and not extending any arguments through FF not brought up in Summary. Engage with your opponent.

I like signposting and line by line, but honestly I didn't do a great job of doing that in HS, so it's not that big of a deal? Organization is very very important though; as long as you have organization then I'm fine with however you decide to structure your speech.

Frameworks are fine, but just make sure to talk about why it's valid and why your arguments best fit the framework. Personally, I don't really think frameworks are all that useful, mainly because 90% of teams that run frameworks don't actually sustain their arguments throughout the round.

You can ask to show me cards/evidence if it is in dispute, but I personally will call a card if it is so influential to the round that I can't make a decision without seeing it. That being said, if you mislead or use fake evidence, I will most likely drop you right there.

I probably won't flow cross, but that doesn't mean take cross off. Have questions prepared. Be polite. Let your opponent speak.

Impacts, Impacts, Impacts. These are the most important pieces of information. Please make sure to do comparative weighing throughout the round, whether it be on probability, magnitude, scope, etc. In the end, your warranting could be completely undisputed, but if I believe that your side's impacts are not as important (very broadly defined based on how they are weighed) as the other side's you will most likely lose.

Something I've realized after I left PF is that debating and discourse really involves going on a personal level, beyond the evidence. Yeah, data, statistics, research papers, etc. are good, but the best way of really convincing someone is to make your argument as relatable, understandable, and believable as possible. That's really what I'm looking for. Admittedly, my rebuttals (I was second speaker) did not follow this trend, but I think it's still very important. That's not to say that having data/statistics is bad, it's just that there's more to a debate than just evidence.

Side note: I like Worldstar. So I'll just copy and paste what it entails here.

"If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and you're partner each get 1.0 added to your speaks. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get deducted 0.1 speaks for interrupting cross."

On the topic of speaks, I will try and be very friendly, unless you are being rude/racist/sexist/a bigot. Don't do those, and I'll be a speaks fairy.

I am an LD coach in the CFL, but I have experience judging all debate events.

Value & Criterion - remember this is LD, not PF. Ultimately I am looking for you to tie all points in your case back to your value structure. Your value structure sets a standard for me to weigh the round. Be sure that your case upholds the standard established in your value structure.

Clarity, Logic, & IMPACT - Keep your arguments concise and to the point. Snowball effects and illogical conclusions will cause me to discount your arguments. I want to see impact!! Why is what you are arguing important? Why should I care? Evidence should be clear and concise, cited and applied correctly to your case.

Structure & Narrative: I like to see a clear narrative throughout your case. Why and how does your offense outweigh your opponents? I like you to give me clear voters that link back into the narrative of your offense.

QUALITY > Quantity - Speed does not win a round with me. Logical, original, well-thought out arguments will win your round. I will flow as you debate, and if I cannot understand you I can not flow your arguments. I can handle some speed, but if you spew out as many arguments as you can or barrel through reading your case, I will likely just drop my pen. A good debater can give clear, logical arguments in the time frame allotted without needing to speed read. Again, QUALITY is better than quantity.

Maturity & Civility - I will take points for arrogance, rudeness, or immaturity. There is never cause to be nasty or unkind to your opponent. If you cannot argue your side diplomatically and respectfully, your lack of professionalism will be reflected in speaker points.

A few notes on flowing....

If you call for a card in round, and then fail to bring it back up, I assume you conceded the point to your opponent. Depending on the specifics of the round I may dock points for this.

I do not flow the author's name of a card. If you continue to reference arguments by using the author's name as a tag, I won't know to which argument you are referring, and I won't be flowing it.

I do not flow CX but I am listening closely and I appreciate when you extend arguments or points from CX into rebuttal

I will use my flow in my decision making, but it will not be the only point of reference for my decision. There is something to be said for your style of communication and delivery as well as the arguments you make.

I am a rhetoric, publications, and composition teacher at Carolina Day School. I teach argumentation, analysis, and writing via AP English Language and Honors Journalism.

I am a first-time debate judge for TabRoom.

I expect well-articulated arguments that value logical reasoning and sound evidence. I am not impressed by speed.

Public Forum:

If you don’t have a framework in the constructive, I will assume we are employing a cost-benefit analysis. If you ask me to make that assumption, I will still be looking to you to weigh impacts using that cost-benefit analysis. I see some PFers waiting until the summary to present a framework; while this can work, it’s much cleaner and more effective to state your framework upfront in the constructive.

Ardrey Kell '20 | UNC Chapel Hill '24

Email: goskonda24a@ad.unc.edu

Contact me if you have any questions with the email above

***Note for online rounds: Online debates are really weird and the possibility of someone's internet cutting out or their audio lagging is really high. In order to keep the round going smoothly, I strongly suggest that you send over speech docs for each speech and disclose your cases either on the wiki or putting it on the email chain. That way even if there is a technical issue during a speech we don't have to backtrack.

General

I was the captain of the Ardrey Kell High School Public Forum team. I competed in PF for 4 years and had some decent success on circuit.

Speed wasn't an issue as a debater but judging is a whole different story, so slow down just a little bit, especially if it's a new topic. I'm fine with spreading as long as you provide speech docs (otherwise I won't flow).

Provide warrants for everything you read. Explain why something happens, instead of just claiming that it happens.

Signpost signpost signpost!

Flow stuff

-Debate is a game. I am tech>truth and will flow any argument, as long as you articulate them well and your link chains actually make sense.

-I like framework debates, but in order to win off of framework you need to extend it in every speech of the round. If no framework is given, I default cost-benefit.

-No new offensive overviews in second rebuttal. Second Rebuttal should frontline turns (you can kick out of them strategically, but don't bs). Weighing in rebuttal is lit.

-If an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true.

-Summary and final focus have to be consistent. You can re-explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round in FF. 1st FF can do a little bit extra weighing and new backlines to responses made in 2nd summary given that the first speaking team has a disadvantage in the round but no new link extensions that weren't in summary.

-My favorite protein is weigh protein (if you don't understand you're either gonna lose the round or you spend time prepping for debate so much that you don't have time to go to the gym)

-If you don't extend a link in summary, it's game over for you. Link extensions should have uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. Weighing should also be extended in every speech. You can't link in with weighing if you're not winning your link.

-Extending something doesn't mean saying "extend the Smith evidence that goes conceded". Extend what the evidence says as well as the warranting/implication

-Summary doesnt have to extend conceded defense unless it's turns or TD. Turns without warranting and implications aren't turns at all so I'm not gonna evaluate them if you don't flush them out.

-2nd FF can't have any new link ins or weighing. Extend it from summary

At the end of the day, I will vote off of the most important argument in the round. If it is well-articulated and weighed, chances are you probably won it.

Progressive Argumentation

I'm going to be honest here. I understand and support the fact that progressive argumentation is key for checking back abuse of norms and create inclusivity in the debate sphere. However, I ran substance for most of my career and I am not an expert at progressive argumentation. That being said, I will evaluate theory and some basic level Ks if they are really really well explained. My threshold for evaluating progressive args is high so the simpler your arguments are, the better. I'd still much rather judge a normal substance debate, but if there is a violation that you absolutely have the need to call out, then go for it. Don't run frivolous arguments.

-CIs>reasonability

-I slightly lean to no RVIs but I'm pretty taboo about it

-No K-affs, Plans/CPs, tricks, etc (I have no idea what these are)

Miscellaneous

-I'm not going to call for cards after round unless you make an effort to indict one and I am told to call for it.

-I will be flowing the entire round except for crossfire, so if something important in cross pops up, I'm not going to consider it unless it's mentioned in speech.

-If you are racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, ableist, or show any other kind of discrimination you will be dropped automatically with the lowest speaks possible.

-You can paraphrase your cards as long as the content is what it actually says. If you do get caught lying about your cards, you will get an L with really low speaks

-Any Weeknd or Drake reference = 30 speaks

At the end of the day, whether you're on the bid round or you're riding the bubble, make sure you have fun. I get bored very easily debating or judging so make the round entertaining and light hearted. If you're funny, I'll bump your speaks and will like you but don't force it or come off as rude.

If you have any questions that I may not have answered in this paradigm, you can contact me using the info I put at the top.

Good luck!

Hi everyone! I am currently a senior at Duke studying Neuroscience and Public Policy, hoping to pursue law school. Just through the nature of my academic work I have had some experience with debate in general, but, in a more substantial way, I competed in Public Forum for 4 years on a variety of circuits during high school. Although I am an experienced judge who generally knows how the event/the arguments work, it has been some time since I have been around the event itself. Because of that, I'm not going to judge strictly off of a flow, and I really do see the value in being able to sum up a detailed debate in terms of impacts and convey these ideas to a lay audience. In the debates I judge, I'd like to see a lot of emphasis on impacts, but also would like to see debaters explain/critique the links connecting arguments to impacts, especially in earlier speeches. With rebuttals, I hope to see substantive critiques which a lot of clear reasoning, tying back to the central argument, while being able to logically prove your own argument/disprove your opponents. Also remember to have fun! Looking forward to watching your debates!

Email for email chains: ryleyhartwig@gmail.com

I competed in public forum at American Heritage in high school (2014-2016) and policy at FSU (2016-2018). Any questions you have specifically about my paradigm can be asked before the round.

Paradigm

- Do anything you want to do in terms of argumentation. It is not my job as a judge in a debate community to exclude certain forms of argumentation. I probably have not read your specific K lit if you go that route, make sure you explain it. If your theory is frivolous its a lot less likely to win, but go for it if you are confident in winning it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot" and it is different in every speech, I probably will not evaluate it. If you are reading a "role of the ballot", you should be able to recite it from memory without changing the phrases multiple times in the debate. Do not read a "role of the ballot" if you do not plan on keeping it consistent, it will result in worse speaker points.IF you're reading a K or other critical argument, explain your authors warranting, don't just assert an extension without explaining and characterizing your authors warranting to the specific debate.

- If neither team has any risk of offense at the end of the debate, I will default neg on presumption. I ALWAYS prefer to vote off a risk of offense over presumption, your probability analysis could win you the round. Provide a contextualization for your impact, and attempt to maintain a narrative throughout the later half of the debate. You will be a lot more convincing.

- Generally have been tech over truth. In PF there are significant time constraints to explain intricate link chains to arguments that may maintain more "tech" than "truth" in their nature--try to stray away from these. My threshold for responses to arguments that are more "tech" than "truth" is pretty low. If there is a large difference in strategy that allows for one of the "tech" over "truth" arguments to win on the flow, that is where I will vote. (eg. Team A reads a nuclear war scenario, Team B only responds with vague variants of "MAD", as long as Team A responds and extends warrants, this is still a tech over truth win)

- Sound logic is better than crappy cards. I think the main determinant of good quality evidence is not where it comes from, but the warranting the author uses to justify either their research or logic-based conclusions. The "why" in evidence is more important than where it is from unless a debater can prove that where the source is from be grounds for the warranting to be undermined.

- Cx is binding.

- If you disagree with my RFD, feel free to postround respectfully, I will be glad to answer any questions or give my thought process when deciding as long as the discussion remains civil.4

I am parent judge who judged 3-4 debates in the last couple of years.

I am a lay judge with some experience in public forum and speech, and limited experience in Lincoln Douglas and Congress.

Please don’t spread or do anything that would make it hard for me to understand you.

Tell me why you are winning, tell me what’s important, don’t make it hard for me to figure that out. WEIGH.

If you have a speech document and are comfortable with sharing it, that would ensure that I do not miss anything you say.

My email is djacobs@mytruloan.com if you want to share anything.

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of a PF round, here are a few things that I want to see:

1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.

2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.

3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.

4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.

5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.

6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.

7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.

How I vote:

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.

Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

Hello! I'm a junior at Duke who did PF and Congressional Debate in high school.

Presentation-wise, I prefer clear, enunciated talking with solid eye contact throughout.

With regards to argumentation, I'm looking for the standard claim --> warrant --> impact logic.

If your opponent brings up a piece of evidence that contradicts your argument, don't come up in rebuttal and say "their argument does not stand because my evidence states the opposite" and end it there. Juxtaposing two contradictory pieces of evidence doesn't prove anything from my perspective. Tell me why your evidence is better/more reliable/more relevant than theirs. That way you're proving the legitimacy of your argument and actually invalidating your opponent's.

Also, have fun! :D

Be engaging and creative. Please do not be over-the-top with your expressions. I will take off if you speak too fast or I can't understand what you're saying.

Hello everybody.

I am new to judging and public forum, but I will try to be a fair judge and flow, take notes, just keep in mind I am definitely a lay judge.

Cases: Be sure your cases are strong, and you are speaking loudly, clearly, and enunciating so I can hear everything properly. Your impacts and links definitely need to be clear-- connect your evidence so it's believable.

Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus: IT IS VERY IMPORTANT to explain what you are supporting so I know exactly what arguments are being talked about. You must emphasize WHY you have won, or I might vote something I missed, so weighing is crucial.

Please extend arguments, especially those brought up in cross, which is a bit harder to flow as a lay judge. If you do not bring it up again, it will most likely be washed over at the end of the round.

Only ask for evidence and sources if necessary, as this takes up a lot of time.

Any racism, sexism, etc. rudeness or constantly talking over your opponents will result in at most, -1 speaker points, so please be respectful-- the rounds should be fun, easy to follow, and most importantly respectful!

Add me to any email chain: vijjikomali@gmail.com

My son wrote the rest of this:

I am a lay judge.

I wont be able to understand your points if you speak too fast, cases with 650-700 words are a good pace.

Speak clearly with good enunciation for me to best understand what you are talking about.

Don't use buzzwords, i wont be able to understand debate jargon.

Sign-post well so I am not lost in your speech

Be specific about what you're talking about, don't just say "look at their first response" or "look the the Smith evidence instead".

The easiest way to judge a round accurately is if you have a clear narrative by the end of the round, don't just dump arguments and expect me to understand which one is better than the other, implicate the clash in the round. And quality>quantity, dont go fast in summary/ff to get coverage, just go slow and choose good arguments to extend

Weighing should happen, no matter what kind of judge, weighing should be understandable to anyone, so at least in FF, make sure that I know who to vote for, what they won in the round, why they win.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am currently a freshman at UNCW, and I competed in speech and debate for three years at Apex Friendship High School. I mainly competed in Public Forum debate, but I do have some experience in Congress, OO, and Impromptu. If you're reading this paradigm, I do have it split up by event with an important note at the bottom for all events. Feel free to browse only the content relevant to you and your event. If you have any questions about my paradigm or anything left out of it, feel free to ask me before the round begins.

--------

PF:

I've competed as both a first and second speaker in my PF, so I am familiar with all speeches and your constraints. I am a flow judge, and you can appeal to me as though I have your arguments and extensions on my paper, but please condense as the round goes on and understand that my flow is only as extensive as your clarity which can be influenced by your speed. I want a narrative, so make sure you and your partner are on the same page.

Also note that I am a college judge who is not currently competing. I don't judge very frequently, therefore, I may not be very familiar with the topic you are debating. Feel free to ask your opponents if you can give a brief description of the topic before the round if you feel that clarity is needed outside of timed speeches. This must be a completely unbiased explanation of the topic as this is not part of the round. For example, "The Belt and Road Initiative - or BRI - is the known as the new Silk Road in China. This is a plan for expansion of trade and infrastructure." For more self-explanatory topics such as UBI, this is not necessary.

Rebuttal: You don't need to frontline in first rebuttal, but you are welcome to if time permits. Just remember, speed is always a factor and I look at quality over quantity. I don't need you to ramble off 7 responses to their C1 subpoint A when you can give me 2 responses with reasoning to back them up. Frontlining in second rebuttal is not required, but heavily suggested. I love a line-by-line, but at the very least you must signpost so I can follow you on my flow. For example, "Starting at the top of my opponents' case" or "we have x responses to their first contention" will let me know where you are.

Summary: I will not flow any new arguments at this point in the round. Reading new cards to existing arguments is fine, but if your partner dropped an argument in rebuttal it's too late to bring it up now. Your summary should be an extension of your partner's rebuttal in terms of your arguments and the cohesiveness of your narrative. I want to see you begin to weigh here, especially in second summary. This is when you need to begin to condense and collapse.

Final Focus: Your final focus should be an extension of your partner's summary, I want to see the cohesiveness. Give me voters and continue to weigh. It's too late to respond to an argument you've dropped, I will not flow it to you. If an argument goes cold dropped by both sides it's a wash for me, so focus on the main points throughout the round and explain to me your links into your impacts on those arguments. Make your weighing and voters thorough, this is where my vote is determined. If you don't weigh and don't give me voters I'm forced to intervene and weigh myself based on the evidence presented and that is when you may get a ballot you don't like.

My main things are just signposting, clarity, condensing, and weighing. I will flow everything except cross, so anything important should be brought back up in a speech. I want debate in crossfire, but there is a line between persistent and aggressive, find the balance. I don't dock speaks if I don't like your contentions or responses, it's up to your opponents to call your evidence if it seems sketchy or misleading. Don't tell me what to call at the end of a round, that's up to me based on the evidence and argumentation you have presented.

----------

Speech:

I competed in OO and Impromptu a few times, and understand that speech events are much more commonly subject to unfair subjective judging. I do my best to focus most on the presentation of a speech, and not as much on content - specifically in events such as Dec where you did not write your speech. Yet, I do look for engagement and passion in your presentation regardless of your topic. Even in events such as Extemp, I expect a speech to be a performance of sorts, expressions and body language go a long way in terms of emphasis of your points.

I do have to be particular in some nitpicky ways, specifically in finals rounds, yet I do my best to not judge you on small stumbles or wavering gestures. Make sure you project and enunciate. Fluctuate your tone and energy for emphasis on the points you deem most important. Use large gestures rather than small ones when you are making an important point, and make sure your gestures have meaning. If you gesture without control or do things such as fidget with your glasses, hair, etc you will seem nervous and unsure. My best advice to you is to pause with purpose if you need a moment to recall your next point, if you can make a pause seem purposeful there is a very good chance I will never know you forgot a line and your performance won't appear stunted.

-----------

All events:

Any racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise discriminatory commentary as well as any personal attacks will drop your speaks to minimum and may be brought up to your coach if extreme. Any negative comments against your opponents/competitors are unacceptable. While we are competing this is a community in which all competitors should support each other, and any unsportsmanlike conduct will be brought to your coaches. I expect a civilized round, and none of the previous are acceptable. Good luck competing! :)

Email: debate@inboxeen.com

**Be kind. Have fun. Don’t be afraid of me! I was once you and I know what it’s like! When I award speaks, they are heavily influenced by the level of kindness and congeniality shown in round. I am judging because I love the activity as much as you, and I want to help you do better if I can!**

School Affiliation(s)

Current Affiliation: East Chapel Hill HS

Current Role at Institution: I'm currently the Associate Director for Digital Communications at the Yale School of Management, but dedicate my off-time to S&D!

Previous Affiliation(s) and Role(s)

The Bronx High School of Science (Bronx, NY)

I coached primarily Public Forum Debate and Legislative Debate (Congressional Debate) at the Bronx High School of Science from roughly 2011-2015. I judged across all events – speech included. I began my coaching career at Bronx as an extemp coach.

River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ)

I have judged and coached (primarily Public Forum) throughout the years since graduating from this school.

Debate Experience

River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ)

I competed primarily in policy debate at River Valley High School in Mohave Valley, AZ. I also competed in other speech and debate events.

Columbia University in the City of New York (New York, NY)

I was a member of the Columbia Policy Debate team and competed for one year during my time in college.

Other

Tell me what to do – i.e. ‘tabula rasa’ insofar as one might even exist, and insofar as it might be helpful to roughly describe my ‘paradigm’.

Please ask specific questions at the beginning of the round for further clarification. E.g. my threshold for buying a reasonability standard has significantly heightened with age.

Run whatever you’d like – hypotesting, retro theory, nothing at all! I can handle it!

Most importantly, this is an educational activity and I believe in Debater/Debate -- i.e. you are more important than the round, so please speak up if you feel uncomfortable and tell me/your coach/tab immediately if something bothers you. I believe in the platinum rule - treat others as they'd like to be treated. Be kind to each other and have fun!

i debated at Cinco Ranch in PF -- i'm now at Duke (gthc)

i am generally a standard flow judge; i expect extensions, weighing, signposting, and i'll notice if you do something super abusive

1. when it comes to speed, i'm not a huge fan, especially in the back half of the round (please collapse) but i can keep up with a pretty brisk rebuttal, etc.

2. i never personally used progressive args / theory, but i don't hate them. if you plan on using them to pick up ballots, then you should strike, but i will pay attention to shells

3. second rebuttal needs to frontline

4. don't be cocky or rude in cross, and if you're blatantly sexist i will down you

5. i will never call for evidence unless someone on the other side explicitly tells me to in FF (it needs to be because it's been misconstrued, not 'worse'). don't ask me to look at your own pls

6. i am not very ham on extending impacts-- it will help you if you do it, but i won't down someone because they didn't extend the precise # of lives lost to genocide (e.g.)

8. weighing is always your friend, but i think your time is better spent engaging with the arguments directly instead of meta-weighing if it comes to that

9. i will presume first speaker, not neg

10. if you treat anyone in a racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/ableist way, or you run similar arguments, i will down you and cut your speaks

I am a parent judge. I try my best to flow however you need to speak slow. If you talk too fast I will put my pen down and stop flowing what you say.

I don't love theory and would really prefer if you not run it. If you still feel compelled to run it, go at your own risk because it has to be well explained.

You have to weigh in summary and the voter issues should be made clear by the end of the round.

Overall, be polite and you will be fine.

Hi, this is your judge - I am a lay judge and prefer clearly explained arguments. You certainly don't have to, but it makes it easier for me to understand if you send a copy of your case to hellosangeetha@gmail.com. The rest of this paradigm is written by my son, who actually does debate.

Before you read further if you plan on running anything extremely complicated like a really squirrely argument or anything progressive I would strike her since she will 100% not know what to do or understand your argument.

Alright she's definitely a lay (parent) judge, which means you shouldn't talk super fast/spread. You don't need to go insanely slow but I'd keep it at conversational pace. Try to be extra clear with your warranting and signposting, though don't use those terms or really any debate jargon as she won't understand it. She'll be able to follow general arguments through the round but you'll need to be very explicit when explaining how your arguments interact with your opponents. For example, if your opponents drop your 1st contention, saying "they do not have any responses to our 1st contention" then extending the link chain and impact is much better than saying "C1 is dropped". Also, I am 99.9% sure she will never read a piece of evidence unless it is absolutely crucial to her own decision - if you want to indict your opponent's evidence make it very clear what is wrong with it instead of just asking her to call the card.

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

About me

I did four years of PF in high school and then coached it for a few years while also working at a few debate camps. I know technical language and can deal with speed so long as it's roadmapped, signposted, and clear.

Me in rounds

I basically start my decisions by looking at the status of the offense left in the round and that has been extended: what has been pulled through and how has it interacted with relevant defense. Then I look at the weighing provided by the debaters and decide where that prism leads my decision. Seems simple, but here are the important ways to make these easy for me.

1 - Weigh early and weigh often. If you do not give me a weighing mechanism for the round, I'll figure out one I like and use that. The best way to make sure I understand and use your weighing mechanism is to tell me early on, explain why it's better than how your opponents are weighing the round, and explain how your impacts are implicated in your weighing mechanism.

2 - Properly extend offense. Make sure you're extending the warrants and impact of your preferred offense as much as possible. Extending turns also means extending the explanation of how they interact with your opponent's arguments. I'm fine with defense going from rebuttal to summary, so frontline accordingly. Do not tell me to extend a card by saying a name without saying what that card says.

3 - Be nice and have fun. Will it inherently impact my decision? No. But I still like to see it.

I'm a former PF debater, so take that as you will. NO SPREADING!! Other than that I just want everyone to be respectful. I like evidence, but more importantly I want you to give IMPACTS.

The best time to invest in a good internet connection was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

I'm a truth over tech parent judge with about 3 years experience, and fairly active in the season. I'm a lay judge that flows, but not to any internationally recognized standard, and definitely not in more than one color. My writing is scruffy, sometimes I can't read my own notes. If you see me drawing big circles or boxes, it's because someone just made some ridiculous claim, and it's rude to laugh - so I scribble a shape instead.

Triangle - only a Muppet would say that.

Rectangle - only a Muppet would believe that.

Oval - only a Muppet would have found this in the deepest parts of the internet and think it was worth repeating with a straight face.

I'm a scientist, a software engineer, and yes, that thing behind me is a tower made from IKEA lack tables holding two 3D printers.

My name is Kristi Platt, and I am a parent of a Freshman debate student at Carolina Day School. I have never taken a debate course, and have never judged debate. I volunteered to judge to fulfill a requirement for our school. I am a general dentist, and will do the best job I can. I’m looking forward to experiencing debate, as my daughter has done an excellent job explaining the process.

Hi! My name is Brenda Reiter and I’m a graduate student at the George Washington University. I competed in Public Forum for 5 years. I am a flow judge, and I will be open to all arguments.

I hate evidence debates. I know evidence is essential to a debate but it’s somewhat pointless to be throwing out cards that aren't being explained logically or have a sound warrant.

I don’t have a problem with terminal defense (extension from 1st rebuttal to 1st FF) but if you must bring it up in summary.

Summary and FF should tell a similar story (voters, warrants, evidence)

I hate off-time road maps!! I prefer you tell me where you’re going and signpost throughout your speech.

Please use voters!! Tell me why you’re winning not your contentions again!

I will probably ask to see evidence that is conflicting and or evidence that is winning you the round. If your evidence is incredibly complex and I a senior in college cannot understand it, your opponents probably won’t and I won’t evaluate it.

Don't get lost in the technicality of the debate, but rather focus on the bigger picture. Also, remember you are debating the resolution.

Theory shells/debate:

My last debate tournament was in 2019 and a lot of things have changed since then. When I competed in PF theory was not big at all and you would often lose a round if you ran it. No longer the case so as I continue to judge I have to adapt. I don’t know theories so if you run something please explain it to me!! I will vote for any argument that stands through the round but EXPLAIN!!

In terms of disclosing cases and evidence in Wiki, I don’t care if it happens. I don’t think it’s abusive if a team doesn’t post their case. The thing about PF is being able to take down arguments with logic which is more compelling for me than evidence that is not properly understood.

Don’t be afraid to ask me any questions!!

I want to give y'all a virtual high five for still committing to debate during these crazy times and know that it shows amazing character! Now onto a little about myself;

I debated for all four years of high school, and I know that everyone works really hard. That being said, I want each person to be respectful. The main issue with reaching the other side is how it is being presented, which goes further than just a debate round. I don't particularly appreciate spreading, I think you lose the content, and I am no longer focusing on what you have to say. I like more logical debates rather than a stat off.

Background

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit from 2013-2017. This is my fourth year coaching for Durham Academy in Durham, North Carolina. I currently am a senior attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill majoring in Peace, War, and Defense with a concentration in international security and intelligence.

Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.

I will disclose unless the tournament tells me otherwise.

General

I will buy any argument and vote off of it. This includes kritiks and theory... Just warrant such arguments well.

I don't care if you paraphrase. Just don't misconstrue what your evidence actually says.

Split rebuttals are impressive/strategic but they are not necessary. Just make sure your first speaker frontlines effectively in summary. However, feel free to make their job easier and frontline for them in rebuttal.

My threshold for warranting arguments is very very high. If you are winning an argument in case or in rebuttal, clearly articulate the link chain of the argument when you are extending it. This does not mean shout random card names at me. Just walk me through the logical link chain of what you are extending.

Speed/Signposting

I can flow at just about any speed

However.....

If you are going to speak quickly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. ie: "We are winning our 2nd response on their first contention, which is *insert well explained warrant* *insert well explained impact*." I also do not know all the names of authors in your case so tell me what authors say!! Do not just extend specific authors!!

I flow fairly quickly but if I do not know where you are you will likely see me scrambling to figure out what to do with my flow. You should pay attention if I do this because that means slow down or signpost better.

Also....

If you have an issue with your opponents evidence make it very clear to me in the round. You can do this in many ways. Examples include reading your opponents evidence out-loud during a speech, explaining how the evidence is misread, and/or telling me to call for the evidence post round.

I will not call for your evidence unless asked to call for something. In my opinion, calling for evidence without a reason is a form of judge intervention.

How to get 30 speaks:

Make the round entertaining/make me laugh.

I personally hate rounds that are way too serious and debaters are not questioning the analytical logic of each others arguments in an entertaining way. This does not mean turn the round into a joke but rather pretend like there is an audience on the zoom call/in the back of the room. This is generally a good strategy to seem perceptually dominate too.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Experience: Debated in public forum throughout high school.

Style Preferences:

Speed is fine as long as you enunciate. I do not vote on delivery, but strong delivery will help my understanding of your arguments. That being said I am very particular about volume. I understand that debates can get heated sometimes, but I ask that you refrain from any disrespectful behavior (yelling, eye-rolling, condescension, etc).

Judging:

Debate is about the clash of ideas. I try my best to come into a round as a blank slate with no preconceived notions or biases. As long as an argument has a logical claim and warrant, I'll accept the impacts of that claim, until it is refuted with greater logic and evidence.

The only time my personal opinion will be a factor will be in topicality debates --on this point, I find topicality debates very annoying/avoidable, links and burdens should be built into your framework or observations so that time in the round is not wasted elsewhere, if it's absolutely necessary to clarify please be brief.

Cross:

Debate is about the clash of ideas. Crossfires are the best opportunity to display a direct clash between arguments. I do not care who "looks best" at the end of crossfire and I do not flow crossfire for argumentation unless you are clarifying something previously mentioned. --crossfire is not the time to bring up brand new arguments or to read cards-- If you need to refer to a new card that is fine but do not read a paragraph as this just wastes time.

*If you successfully poke holes within your opponent's arguments this must be extended into future speeches to be notably weighed in my decision.

Do:

- Be Clear and consistently signpost

- Provide clear impacts that stem from Claim-Warrant-Impact structures.

- I like unique arguments as long as their relevance to the resolution is made clear with links.

Do Not:

-Say "I/my partner can bring that up in their next speech" and then never mention it again. If this happens, I will drop the contention that the question was related to.

-Raise your voice to the point of yelling --if you do I will likely stop listening and drop whatever point you are screaming about.

Debate is supposed to be fun. I enjoy civil debates where opponents are respectful to one another. If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round as long as we're not running behind. Good luck!

-Jacob Skeehan

I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida from 2014 to 2019. I just graduated from Duke University and am finishing up my fourth year coaching PF at Durham Academy.

For Nats 2023, please put me on the email chain- smith.emmat@gmail.com.

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. This is the place on my flow where I need to intervene the least as a judge in order to make a decision. Explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

- Please preflow before the round. Holding up the tournament to take 15 min to preflow in the room is really annoying :(

- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason. At the very least, I'll tank your speaks and write you a kindly worded educational ballot about making rounds unnecessarily hostile.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- HUGE DISCLAIMER: My biggest pet peeve in PF right now is the use of progressive args to make rounds inaccessible to teams who don't know how to handle them. Reading progressive args against a clearly inexperienced team to get a cheap win is an easy way to auto lose my ballot. ALSO I am really not confident in my abilities to evaluate progressive arguments. If you choose to run them, you take on the risk of me making the wrong decision despite doing my best. Proceed with caution!

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

I am a high school chemistry teacher at The Franklin School of Innovation and a Carolina Day School parent from Asheville, NC.

I will be flowing debates. I can handle moderate speed, but speed cannot come at the expense of clarity. If I can’t understand what you are saying and get it down on the flow, I won’t be able to weigh it later in the round.

I am a parent / lay judge. I try my best to flow with a flow tool I've used for the past 3 years I've been judging. I don't really understand theory and would really prefer if you not run it. I will review team balance (teamwork) and clock management for close matches. The pro should convince me that the resolution should be adopted, and the con should prove that the resolution should be rejected. Speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery.

Hi all, my name is Thuan Tran, and I am a sophomore at Duke University majoring in Political Science. I've done debates in high school, mostly focused on Science debates. I also did a lot of Model United Nations while in high school.

I was a lay debater so definitely also a lay judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can understand you and judge you.

Do not be rude to your competitors, that is not appreciated. I love good rebuttals, but only the ones that are respectful.

I’m currently a first-year student at Duke and I competed mainly in Congressional Debate during high school and have had experience in Public Forum.

In Congress - I will be looking at strong link chains in your argument. Everything has to make sense if you want to be scored well. Argumentation will be valued over presentation (probably around 75% argumentation 25% presentation). Make sure you are respectful to your fellow competitors. I want to see a lot of clash and no rehashed arguments. If you can pull off a strong refutation/crystalization speech that will be scored better than bringing up two new points towards the end of the debate. Make sure you ask lots of good questions and are attentive throughout the debate. POs should be fair, respectful, and efficient. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

In PF - Please no spreading or talking obnoxiously loud just to talk over your competitors. Make sure your link chains are strong and everything is as clear as possible. I'll want to see you cite from strong sources and are well prepared. If you want me to vote on your side I'll have to see a humanized impact (human reason). Presentation doesn't really matter to me I'll look at your argumentation and how you respond to your opponents mainly. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shubo.yin@aya.yale.edu

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