1. Contentions should be clearly laid out. (Ex. My first contention is...) This makes it easier for both me and your opponents to follow along with your case.

2. Please try not to spread (speak too quickly). I need to be able to understand your contentions in order to take notes.

3. I need you to have strong evidence to back up all claims. I prefer statistics and numbers over anecdotes.

4. Please be able to give your source when asked.

5. It is important that you have a strong impact and that you prove to me why your impact is more important than your opponents'.

One last note: please put the name of your school and which side you will be debating in your name. If you are comfortable, please add your pronouns too.

I graduated from Montville Township High School in 2018 and from Wesleyan University in 2022. I did PF for 4 years and I now work for the New York City Urban Debate League.

I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy. I probably won't flow from a speech doc. I'm fine with game-like things like kicking case and going for turns. I'm okay with some level of tech/progressive argumentation, but I don't want that to be a game-like thing--I probably won't vote for a shell/K that I think is read solely because the other team doesn't know how to handle it.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.

First summary does not need to cover defense unless second rebuttal frontlined. First summary should include turns if you want them as offense, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense (unless they were frontlined in second rebuttal).

I really, really appreciate collapsing in both summaries. And, of course, weighing.

Sta 23'

I am a tech judge who has no debate experience whatsoever. 

I am strict on time. If you go even a millisecond over the designated speech time I will interject TIME! Also you will get 20 speaks.

If you mention Jasper Datta, Vikas Nanduri, or Davis Abrams in your speech you will get 30 speaks.

I don't flow cause i believe it wastes paper and hurts the environment, and I cant type very well so no more than 80 wpm. (sometimes my fingers hurt so I will let you know if i cant flow)

weigh but dont weigh. I hate comparison args that have nothing to do with another. If you weigh extinction comparatively with POC I will deadass drop you for clown behavior.

on prog args:

I honestly dont care so if you run this and the other team goes along with it than take your 50-50 chances cus ill be flipping a coin to determine the winner at the end of the round.

I only presume aff because I hate the current world we live in so any change is solvency in my lens.

do not ask me questions about my paradigm or i'll drop you. I hate questions

I hate cross

I hate overviews. They are just loser strats that give the team running them an advantage cus they cant debate other contentions. Dropped for framing as well. Observation are dumb also.

I hate off-time roadmaps. I like surprises.

If you ask me for an rfd at the end of the round I wont give you one. Go cry if you lost

LD:

no clue.

Policy:

pretend im lay please

Now onto the fun part: Allusions

Reference playboi carti- 30 speaks

Reference MLK- 30 speaks

Reference Donald trump or even cite ev from him-20 speaks

Reference Biden- dropped

Novices:

If you suck. Ill flip a coin or presume aff. (if im feeling generous ill do the latter)

I believe all novices need framing because they will just go all over the flow and never collapse.

30 speaks for novice framing.

Have fun!! not too much fun or ill drop you tho

Please dont report me to Jeffrey Miller . This is my only job

Flay Judge

Personal: daelias02@gmail.com

BHS '21, 4 years varsity pf debate

Preferences:

-I hate spreading because I value quality over quantity. If you have to gasp for air when you're speaking I consider it spreading. (I'll say clear if I can't understand you)

-Be nice, you probably don't need to scream. Interrupting is fine but only if you're responding to an argument, not preventing your opponents from making one.

-Try to stay within the time allotted but I allow 10 second cushions for each speech, including constructives. Won't flow anything after that.

-Signposting and clear extensions are greatly appreciated and will improve your chances of winning

General:

-Defense is sticky - if they don't address your response there's no need to repeat it. Offense is less sticky, try to extend throughout the round.

-Weigh a lot in summary and FF - comparative weighing as soon as possible

-Try to collapse, you can win a round without winning every single issue

Progressive/K Cases: Don't really like the idea of them but if you make a strong argument I will judge you on it.

Speaker Points: Losing team starts at 28, winning team at 29 unless you're super rude/disrespectful. After that, I'll judge on warranting, word efficiency, and strategy.

Previous coach, tab director (be on time!), and judge of long ago. Never debated. I can flow arguments made at slightly above conversational pace and appreciate when winning arguments are made clear enough that I don't have to think too hard.

• Don't time torch the round - there are guidelines in the Live Doc about prep time deduction if your evidence takes an excessive amount of time to find. You should be able to find your cards within ten to fifteen seconds in our digital age. Use hyperlinks to your advantage!
• There are also specifications about no prep during evidence finding since, if it's as fast as it should be, that time isn't deducted from prep.

Theory: Debate is a game that should be equitable, educational, and played respectfully. I'll listen to arguments that impact to the shortfalls of the debate space in any of those domains.

In general, I am open to all arguments, I believe that every argument has value but it is up to the debater to

1. Determine what that value is
2. Communicate what impact the argument have in the round.

I do however tend to swing more towards traditional policy options due to my experiences as a high school policy debater, however I am not against voting for more critical affirmatives. If teams choose to run these affirmatives, I like to see a great impact analysis towards the end of the debate. A good affirmative/a great debater should be able to apply their advantages in any situation.

To me a great impact analysis levels the playing field.

On that point, I examine topicality as a gateway issue. If a neg team runs a T argument it is the burden of the affirmative to meet the violation. This is important!

In terms of Kritiks, I value a well explained Kritiks, If rejection is the alternative, please explain what that means, how do you access solvency both in round and post round?

In terms of speed-reading, make the tags/authors/dates clear.

Finally in terms of speed reading please slow down on tags, authors and dates. Other than that feel free to speed through the text.

**A Final Note: I love spirited discussion about how a round was conducted on my reason of decision. I am however not in the interest of debating a decision with debaters after the round is over... there is no such thing as a 3NR or 3AR. If you don't do this, I will end the conversation there. It's not that I want to be rude, rather I firmly believe many judges spent countless hours making a committment to support debate and honestly every judge's opinion should be respected, even if you disagree with it. The burden of proof is on the debater and if that proof is not presented in the round or not explained well enough for the judge, it is on the debater. In real life, you must be able to adjust your style to the audience you are around... not expect the audience to immediate understand you.

** Assume that I am a flow judge, but lay on the topic

If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to be in summary and final focus.

I appreciate world comparisons, weighing, and logically explained arguments.

I do not like speed. I will not flow your arguments if I do not understand what you are saying.

I will decide your speaks based on the clarity and content of your speech.

In general

***Before you start your speech tell me which side of the flow you are starting on, and sign post clearly as you go along.

***Don't be a jerk.

***Please do not shake my hand.

About me: Stanford CS Student. Debated 4 years of VPF for Delbarton School. Decent first speaker, TOC qualed, cleared at Nats, but nothing super crazy. Treat me like a moderately technical flow judge. I've been away from debate for a while and don't judge very often. I can understand up to 250 wpm but I can't flow that fast. I'm probably not coaching for this topic, so assume I don't know any technical topic terms unless told otherwise. I'll disclose. Email willeli2002@gmail.com with evidence exchange or questions. Honestly, I'm pretty fine with most styles of debate so unless you're Eminem, debate how you'd normally debate and don't shoot yourself in the foot trying to adapt to me.

Round Stuff: (I am much more lenient about these things at the novice and JV levels)

- If something makes logical sense I will evaluate it even if I don't believe in it. I'll try my best to be tabula rasa, but reading cards and links isn't enough if there isn't a logical warrant I can understand.

- Smart analytics >>> poorly explained evidence

- Second rebuttal needs to frontline turns or they are conceded. Also, would be VERY nice if you also frontlined defense on the argument you're going for.

- Summary needs frontline the arguments you go for. Dropped defense is sticky in first summary (can be extended from first rebuttal to first final). If the first summary collapses, the second summary should extend defense.

- As a first speaker, I appreciate a good summary. Collapse, weigh, and extend warrants not just card names. Don't go line by line.

- However, would prefer if you read and extended card names just not as a substitute for warrants

- Please weigh early: tell me a story. Also your weighing needs to make sense and be comparative. Quality of weighing mechanisms >>> quantity of weighing mechanisms. If your weighing sucks, I probably won't evaluate it too much.

- If it's a link debate please don't read impact weighing. Link-ins and prereqs are the most convincing "weighing" mechanisms imo. If you control your opponent's link, I'll vote for you even if you don't read impacts.

- Uniqueness controls the direction of the link unless I'm told otherwise.

- If no one weighs, I'll just make my own opinions. Generally, weighed arguments > dropped arguments

- I'll probably average around 28.5-29 in speaks. Being smart and strategic wins your more speaker points than just fluency.

- There's like a 40% chance I'll time any given speech. I would say don't go over time, but honestly I did it all the time as a debater. Don't go more than 10 seconds over, but if you can get away with it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

- Add me to the email chain, but I won't look at any evidence unless I'm told to call it. Also explain your indites; not just: "their evidence is trash!"

- Easiest way to win my ballot is to win your argument cleanly and weigh it well. I don't like to think, and I'm not that smart. Go easy on my potato brain.

- Humor is appreciated just make sure you're actually funny :P. Definitely don't be rude and stuff.

- High school debate tournaments were pretty stressful for me. There's a lot more to the experience than wins and losses. I'm an imperfect judge who will make imperfect decisions. Don't let round results influence your feelings of self worth. Have fun!

Theory and Ks: Default to not running these. I'll try my best to evaluate theory if something egregious happens, but I'm not super experienced with progressive debate, so run at your own risk. Not super sure what a K is. I'll probably default to not believing paraphrase/disclosure theory unless there is a very good reason.

My PF paradigm is similar to my partner's linked below. He goes into more detail about some of my other preferences (how to boost your speaks, etc.)

https://tinyurl.com/connorteehan

Erica (she/her). Debated PF at Stuyvesant for four years. Email for speech docs and email chains: el963@georgetown.edu

Feel free to ask me questions before the round. Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will instantly drop you.

I won’t flow over 180wpm. (unless you speak so clearly that I don’t notice — which you probably won’t)

Speak fast at your own risk. I won’t vote on anything not on my flow. I also won't flow what's said overtime. I will absolutely clear you.

Tech > Truth, but just barely. In my heart it’s truth > tech. Do with that what you will. On the off chance I vote for your four extinction scenarios, I will be so unhappy, I’ll cap your speaks to 27.

If you lie in your speech and I catch you 27 max.

Anything you want me to vote on must be said in both summary and final focus. I like weighing and warranting.

For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing me, strike me.

No progressive argumentation. I will instantly drop you. If there’s abuse in the round, just say it; you don’t need a shell.

Time your own prep.

Harvard Judging Update: I am very familiar with the PF feb topic

I have competed in PF and help write the Debatetrack brief and run Public Forum Debate Academy on YouTube.

Add me to the email chain if there is one (I'll provide my email at the beginning of a round). I like speech docs and can handle up to ~200 wpm.

I enjoy debates where people incorporate some logic into the round. You can have as many arguments at the beginning of the round, just make sure there is time to explain each one in-depth (examples and a detailed impact are helpful). At the end of the round I’m likely to consider voting in one to three places, so you should condense your arguments as the round progresses (especially in summary speech for those in Public Forum). Additionally, having a narrative/story alongside your contentions is helpful and can aid in getting high speaker points.

While I don't need off-time roadmaps/order of your speech, I am happy to accept them (so long as they are brief). Regardless of that, please tell me where you are starting, whether that is stated in the roadmap or at the beginning of your speech.

Do not be aggressive in cross or speeches, I value respect, and continually interrupting the other side in the crossfire almost always is not good for your ballot. Smugness, head shaking, and smirking/laughing at your opponents will lose you speaker points.

For evidence, I like to have dates and author's last name in accordance with NSDA guidelines. Ideally, you should qualify your sources/authors and let me know what type of study or article the evidence is. After the first mention of the evidence, you can refer to the evidence as the author's last name.

In close rounds, I want to be persuaded and I may just listen to both Final Focus/LD Neg Rebuttal & Aff Rebuttal speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

If you put in believable and effective weighing mechanisms, then I will almost certainly vote for you if there is no other clear-cut comparative analysis. If there are multiple weighing analyses from both sides, I vote for the most compelling (best explained, most realistic) weighing. You can also refute the weighing and I am thus less likely to vote off that weighing unless it is defended.

In particular, I find the truest arguments to be the best place to vote. Thus, discussion of probability is usually more important than the scope or magnitude of an issue. This is not to say scope is unimportant, I am willing to default to the believability of an argument before I consider how many people are impacted.

If there's no weighing, I generally vote for the argument that has been defended the most. In Public Forum, I am looking for arguments to be extended in Summary and Final Focus if they want to be considered

As for time, I will let each team finish up a sentence/concept but f a new response is made overtime, I will not consider it.

In crossfire, I appreciate two things. First, logical questions are appreciated. Second, evidence indicts are also good, although they can be a tad tougher to execute.

At the end of the day, while I do flow, I am more lay than most teams recognize. Great rounds for me include the NSDA National and State finals because they incorporate logic and analytics with solid evidence. I respect a mature, calm, and logical team.

Theory - I don't think I am qualified to vote for a full theory shell but if the opponents have bad evidence ethics I am open to theory. Paraphrasing theory is ok as well, just don't make the shell too technical

Kritiks - really not familiar to these.

she/her

1st yr out

my experience:

-pf all of hs (first speaker)

-ranked in top 10

-nats 2x

-toc g+s.

for round:

-assume i have minimal topic knowledge + provide context if u feel it's prudent

-WEIGH. i hated weighing intervention when i debated, but now seeing the round from the other side of the table, i see that it's needed if u don't provide any analysis + mechs.

-idrc ab collapsing

- <3 short OTRs

-time yourselves

-PF fast is chill, no spreading

-extend relevant warrants/cards through at least sum

-any fw/fw clash needs thorough warranting

-i only have PF exposure, careful with Ks, theory, whatever, but i can try

- don't say anything overall hateful or discriminatory, i'll drop you.

evidence:

-if you take too long to find a card, i'll start running your prep.

-oppressive powertagging = card dismissal

speaks:

-i will dock for general misconduct.

- ++ speaks for any mad theory (mutually assured destruction) jokes (when applicable)

I look for debaters that form clear and logical arguments. I value quality over quantity which means talking fast or asking 5 or more questions during a crossfire is less productive in my eyes than focusing the debate on a few key points. I think it's important to be assertive but being aggressive or trying to put words into your opponent's mouth is counterproductive.

Evidence is very important but throwing out a plethora of scattered and dense statistics is also not helpful. Use quantitative evidence where it adds value to your argument. Logic and reasoning are equally valid ways to provide evidence.

Hellooo! I am an ex a public forum debate and am currently in med school! I have quite a bit of debate experience (debated for 4 years) and now I coach PF.

I would really appreciate that you guys use technical debate terms/jargon throughout the round. I'll try to include as many details as possible but if you have any other questions feel free to ask. Remember the most important thing is that you try your best and have fun!!

- I can keep up with a pretty fast pace just make sure its understandable, but slow down when reading your impacts or numbers so I can get them all down.

- In your rebuttal I really would prefer a line by line approach but if you don't it wont hurt you.

- For summary please make sure to use impact calculus and explain to me why they apply to each individual issue. Make sure you really summarize for me what happened in the round but please don't just make it another rebuttal that'll make your speaks lower...

- On that same note do not mention any arguments in final focus that you didn't extend through summary. If I hear something not mentioned in summary in final focus, i'll just stop flowing.

- In final focus, same thing as summary don't just refute everything again. This your chance to really grab my attention and tell me why your'e winning. Make it priority to get all the voting issues across. Flat out tell me what they are and how you won them.

- On evidence, I really don't care if you ask for it but if you ask for a new piece every 5 secs i'll probably get annoyed and lower your speaks. With that being said, if you debate over a card for a while i'll ask for it at the end and use that for my decision.

- I will ALWAYS keep time, but do as well try your best to NOT leave more than or go over 3 seconds. In cx, if you go over time just finish your sentence (briefly) don't waste time by asking me.

- I love a fiery cx but if you're rude you'll lose speakers, and if you're just plain disrespectful ( racist/homophobic/xenophobic etc.) you're losing the round.

- If you make me laugh, bring me coffee, or reference Grey's Anatomy your speaker points will be boosted:)

Goodluck!

I'm a relative newcomer to the world of debate, so any arguments that are done at a speed that an average human would struggle to comprehend, I might also have trouble following. Arguments that clearly highlight the impact are particularly important. During crossfires, I really appreciate questions that allow your opponent to actually answer meaningfully, as opposed to critical statements with a question mark at the end (i.e. "You proved that your argument wasn't valid... don't you agree?"). I keep time and expect you to do the same.

Hello!

My name is Dina Rama, and I'm a junior at Columbia University majoring in financial economics. My pronouns are She/Her/Hers. If you have come across this page, it is most likely that you are wondering about my debate experience. I had competitively debated public forum as a sixth grader until my sophomore year of high school. I became a judge for the NYC Urban Debate League during my junior year and have judged both public forum and parliamentary debate. So, I have at least five years of experience as a judge and few years of experience as a debate coach for middle schoolers.

In order to determine the winning side of a debate round, I look for several things:

• If the team had refuted each of their opponent's arguments in a consistent manner throughout the debate round (not only in rebuttal).
• If the team had utilized statistics and evidence to support their arguments (this won't be the final deciding factor; however, evidence can significantly strengthen your arguments).
• If the team had consistently discussed the impacts of their arguments/contentions.
• If the team had consistently discussed magnitude, scope, and probability.
• If the team had weighed their arguments against the arguments belonging to their opponents.

It is important to understand what exactly does the resolution state and what is being debated. For example, if the resolution is, "The benefits of the International Monetary Fund outweigh the harms", it is important to understand that the resolution isn't asking whether or not the International Monetary Fund should be removed, nor is it asking for alternatives. Instead, the resolution is solely asking whether or not the benefits outweigh the harms. Always try to make sure that your speeches and arguments are targeted towards proving your side of the resolution.

My experience/credentials: Junior @ Stanford. Debated PF for 4 yrs. Ranked in top 10 in US. Been to TOC Silver and Gold. Been to Nats 2x. I like it when judges do this, my experience gives you a pretty good indication of how I judge.

Email: raysilv@stanford.edu

Feel free to reach out with questions!

No TLDR, my best advice from my experience is to read paradigms. I think mine is pretty standard for flow but some ppl will be very concerned if you don't read it all.

Debate things:

Overall, just do your thing. As long as you don't say anything worth auto dropping you (at my discretion. I doubt this will happen, but I reserve the right), you should be good to go. I don't care about your style. I don't like Ks and theory though.

Please weigh at some point. For me, I'm okay with weighing on offense differential and link clarity and warrant weighing like that, but people will always overestimate their position in the round. If there is no impact calc, I have to intervene, and I don't want to do that.

If for some reason no one weighs AND no one has any offense left in final (plz don't let that happen), I default neg. PF resolutions have implied burden on the aff so it's the only thing I find fair.

Time yourself and each other. I'll keep time on my own but be honest.

Road maps are preferred (more than 5 seconds is way too much though). PLEASE have a purposeful order to your speech and signpost along the way. Even if you're overwhelmed and don't know what to say, it's good practice to have a clear order and just try to focus on that.

ALWAYS extend warranting then impact, including cards. You don't need to re explain warranting but extend the necessary linkage.

Respond to all responses. Even if the response makes no sense, respond (in that rare case, saying it's illogical works). Extend your turns. You gain offense on turns so you should extend them to gain access when you weigh later.

Second rebuttal needs to respond to first rebuttal. First summary is useless without it. If you are the second team to speak and you don't, I will be very biased against you and your opponent should capitalize on the untouched rebuttal they gave.

Cross is so undervalued. I won't flow, but I am human, and if you destroy someone and prove you're the better debater with more knowledge, I'll probably end up biased in your favor. Point out all concessions/points/etc. made in cross in a speech or they don't count on my flow.

Evidence:

Add me to the email chain.

Don't steal prep. Please. It’s fairly obvious.

Have cards at the ready. I'm personally fine if they are just the article with the quote that I can search for, but if the article is pay blocked or otherwise inaccessible, please cut the card.

Reading cards is on prep time.

Overall:

Have fun! Debate is meant to be fun, but I understand the stress you can sometimes feel. Again, If you have any questions about anything (round related or not) feel free to ask before or after round. I obviously won't change my ballot if you post-round me, but debate is educational so I'll always explain my thoughts.

april 2024 npdl:

hi! my name is melanie (she/her), and i'm a former high school PF debater, and i currently compete in APDA for nyu.

i think the tldr is basically make it as clear as possible for me in how i'm supposed to evaluate the round—i'm a very large fan of off time roadmaps and signposting, please weigh your arguments, have the arguments you want to vote on in rebuttals, etc. i don't really like or have a ton of experience debating or judging theory, kritiks, etc. and i can't promise that i will understand how to properly judge it; if you do run it, may it not be frivolous, and may the mechanics be explicitly explained.

i can flow like 260wpm and up but i would prefer not to. creative arguments are fun; silly arguments are fun. i try to be tabula rasa and am willing to buy an untrue argument if it is uncontested.

Lexington High School Class of 2019

Cornell University Class of 2023

Please put me on the email chain: kevinzhou497@gmail.com

I debated policy for 3 years at Lexington High School, the first 2 years as a 2N and the last year as a 2A.

Be nice and respectful to each other! rudeness, ad-hominems, and discriminatory arguments / comments will not be tolerated.

---Policy Paradigm---

Here are some of my thoughts on certain debate arguments / things:

Tech > Truth. But I like it when truth finds its ways into technical debate arguments. Use the truth to your advantage on the flow, because most debate arguments just don't have any logical basis.

Planless Affs / Framework:

Debate is a game. In my opinion, policy debate is way more a game than it is debate. While I do find planless affs interesting, I do think there are good arguments about why they wreck fairness and all that. Honestly, my own opinion on the matter aligns with framework, so I'm probably not a good judge if you're tryna read a planless aff.

Topicality vs Policy Affs:

Not gonna lie, I'm not going to be great at judging topicality because I never liked going for it or answering it. I think limits is my favorite standard. Reasonability is kind of a derpy argument but like it'll help you to make it because I don't like annoyingly annoying t violations.

Disads:

I like disad debates, but I also think that basically all disads are so logically flawed and horrid. When someone asks me to give an example of how debate often involves arguments that make absolutely zero sense, I'll give them an example of a disad. With that being said, people don't really use that much logic in debate anyway so I'm pretty balanced aff-neg on disads. If you're aff, make logical arguments about why a disad is horrible and I'll probably be persuaded. Of course, evidence is still important, and as I said above, tech > truth.

Counterplans:

Counterplans are cool, especially creative ones that I could see actually working in real life.

If I think that the counterplan isn't very mutually exclusive with the aff, I'm going to want to vote on the perm. So make it mutually exclusive.

Also make sure the CP doesn't link to your net benefit.

Kritiks:

I actually like kritiks on the negative WHEN THEY LINK TO THE PLAN and it's not just a generic "USfg" link. I'm going to weigh the impacts of the aff vs the k regardless, because I think that the impacts of an aff or a K and the ability to solve these impacts is part of the educational value of whatever we're presenting. Alternatives are almost always bad so if your alternative is actually good I'm going to be very intrigued.

Negative teams: DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE CASE. If you give the aff their case it makes it so easy for the 2AR to win why they outweigh.

Theory:

Condo - 3 condo is good, 4 condo is eh, 5 condo is :|, 6 condo is not good

International CPs - good.

States CPs - good.

Consult CPs - probably not.

Agent CPs - sure

Word PICs - ehhh

PICs - good (?)

---PF Paradigm---

Since I have a policy background, I'm going to be more of a flow judge than you might be used to. With that in mind, make sure you substantiate your claims with warrants and impact calculus. You know to do that anyways, but it's probably going to matter with me more than the average pf judge. Although I certainly have my own personal views on issues, I value the flow over anything else (within reason and truth). Still, persuasion is a key component of each argument, but it should be attached to the argument chains themselves and act beyond just an emotional appeal for my ballot.

April Topic - I don't have much topic knowledge, so keep that in mind. If you use terms or acronyms that others who have debated / judged this topic might know but a common person wouldn't, you should specify what the term means the first time you use it.

Framework - Framework's cool, if you can truly convince me to align my value system with yours, then you have a good chance.

Policy / LD / progressive arguments in PF: Go for it! But keep in mind that not everyone will be familiar / is expected to be familiar with these arguments, so explain them thoroughly.

Overall, I'm pretty open minded for pf - I didn't debate it, so I don't have huge biases or preferences. Stay true to the fundamentals and you'll do great.