Hi! I competed for four years in PF at Newton South and am a first year out.

Short version

I’ll vote on the flow but slower debates are appreciated.

Warrants are crucial.

Please do comparative weighing.

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense/turns on any arguments that will be extended.

I’d prefer not to judge prog.

Tech > truth, but in the words of Nilesh Chander, “the best teams win on both fronts”.

Long version

How I judge:

- I will only evaluate what is extended in the second half. This means that if you want me to vote on an argument, you should extend both warrants and impacts. Missing warrants to me means that your argument isn’t true. Also new implications/responses late in round won’t be evaluated.

- Please, please frontline all defense on what you’re going for in second rebuttal. Also please collapse and don't extend your entire case.

- Doing comparative weighing will help me differentiate between arguments and also increase the chance that you’re happy with my decision.

- I won’t kick an argument for being too tech but I’ll accept weaker responses the more unrealistic it is.

- I default to and would prefer to use a util framework.

Speed:

- I can handle most speeds, but would prefer rounds to be slower overall as I’ll be less likely to miss things. When in doubt, send a speech doc.

Evidence:

- Paraphrasing is fine but direct quotes are better.

- I’ll only read cards at the end of the round if teams request it.

- If you can't find a card that's called, I'll treat it as an analytic.

- I will boost your speaks for disclosing on the PF NDCA wiki but there is absolutely no penalty for not disclosing.

Other stuff you might want to know:

- I don't flow cross, so if you get an important concession that you want me to evaluate you should bring it up in a later speech.

- I do time speeches. If you go overtime, I won't stop you but I will also stop flowing.

- I generally give high speaks, and I will also disclose if the tournament allows and both teams are okay with it.

- I don’t think I will ever presume, but if I did I would presume for the team that lost the coin flip.

--------------------------------------------------

Prog:

I think progressive arguments make the activity more confusing and am generally opposed to them.

On theory specifically: I dealt with a lot of theory when I was competing. I really don’t want to deal with theory as a judge unless there’s an actual violation that occurs in the round like a piece of evidence being seriously misconstrued, and even then I would prefer an IVI instead of a shell that kicks the substance completely. I’ll raise your speaks if you disclose but I don’t want to hear disclosure theory.

I feel uncomfortable in my ability to evaluate Ks and would highly prefer it if they are not read. Tricks etc are also too much for me.

I will not evaluate any kind of progressive argumentation in a novice round.

-----------------------------------------------

If you’re confused about anything or have additional questions, please ask me before the round!

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

First time judging. Will do my best to enter each round unbiased on the topic.

I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, and not so quickly their points are hard to follow. Please keep debate jargon to a minimum. Follow the time limit, provide evidence, and be prepared to provide cards quickly. Finally, please bear in mind there is a difference between being assertive and being rude.

Would like to hear clear, logical, evidence based argument.

Glad to see you're reading my paradigm!

I debated for three years, and while I talk fast myself, I want to hear clear speeches. Make sure your arguments are clear and thought out, and we'll have a good round. Weighing will be a big part in how I will make up my mind. Make sure you WEIGH in your final focus.

And of course, as always, be respectful.

email chain: samjones@college.harvard.edu

PLEASE EXPLICITLY WEIGH AND EXTEND LINKS - IF YOU DO NOT I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE TO DECIDE WHAT WARRANT/IMPACT IS MORE IMPORTANT AND NO ONE WILL BE HAPPY.

Update Harvard 2024: For some reason, everyone keeps reading extinction impacts without internal links and no link weighing. I like extinction as an impact when done well, but it isn't an excuse to not read links and not weigh. "There's no internal link in case" is a valid response. If both teams go for extinction, please give me explicit link weighing. "Our impact happens first" isn't weighing unless give me a reason to care. I'm more likely to vote on weighing over extinction than a sketchy link into extinction. Maybe I'm old, but one person per speech and first/second cross.

Day 3: I have not been getting enough sleep, so the more coffee I get brought the better my decision will be. I'm not going to vote on arguments for which I don't understand the internal links - this is the most likely to be true on conflict scenarios.

tldr: debate is a game, tech > truth, and warrants > cards.

Respond to offense and concede defense as soon as possible. First rebuttal defense is sticky until frontlined. I'm almost always going to prefer a warrant over a card. A round where everyone gets 30s is a round where I vote on high-quality warrant comparison.

Without metaweighting, I default uniqueness > magnitude. I won't flow off docs. If you're reading prog, assume I have no background. I'm open to ROTBs which have an explicitly defined way for your opponents to win under the ROTB. I default fairness > education, i'm truth over tech on most shells, and I will vote on RVIs.

Wear whatever and say whatever you want. I don't really listen to cross, but it makes me sad when people talk over each other. I'll vote on anything.

I'm a 4 year PF debater from Sharon High School in Massachusetts with a moderate amount of experience on the national circuit.

tech>truth.

Don't do prog

General:

I time all speeches, and won’t flow anything off time. I won’t stop you, though, unless you are like 30 seconds over.

Time yourself and don’t make me stop you. I do not time prep, so time it yourself.

I won't intervene on evidence, unless you specifically ask me to look at a piece of evidence you believe your opponent is misconstruing.

Tell me when you start. I don’t want to be setting up my flow and all of a sudden you start talking before I can get my timer set.

Cases:

I don’t mind speed, but please make sure your opponent is okay with it, and if they ask you to slow down, then slow down.

HAVE A WARRANT. If you just give a me a card, I really don’t care. I shouldn’t vote for you because Johnson ’19 says something cool. You need to tell me why I should buy the argument, and the card should be backing up the argument.

Crossfire:

I do not flow crossfire. I use that time mostly to craft feedback and think about the round as it pertains to the flow. However, I will still pay attention to what is said. Make sure that if your opponents concede something in cross, you mention it in another speech.

Rebuttal:

I will always prefer strong logic over a mediocre card. If their card doesn’t make sense, tell me that and tell me why.

For second rebuttal, frontlining will make me very happy, but I do not require it.

Summary:

Give me an order for your speech. It can be as simple as “down their case, then our C2”.

Defense is not sticky, so if you have a good piece of defense, extend it.

Don't go for all of your arguments. Collapse on something.

PLEASE WEIGH. It will make the round so much easier for me to evaluate and most often, the team that weighs better wins. But don’t just say “we outweigh on probability”. Tell me why your argument is more likely to happen, etc.

FF:

This speech should mimic summary. Extend offense, interact with their defense and tell me why it doesn’t apply. Extend defense and tell me why it takes out their case. Then weigh. And make sure that you use the same weighing mechanisms as in summary.

Presumption:

I think PF has a lot of rly rude and aggressive debaters, and I decided I'm going to punish that by defaulting to the nicer team in the event of a tie, if nobody was rude; then I default to the team that lost the flip unless a presumption argument is made. If all you say is "default to us because I didn't get to have breakfast this morning" or "default to us because we are from a western time zone and had to get up earlier" and the opponents say nothing, I default to you. If both teams make a presumption argument, I will evaluate both.

Speaks:

I evaluate speaks on how prepared you seem. In crossfire, if your opponent presses hard on a certain argument and you demonstrate a high level of understanding of you own case and how it operates, I will give you higher speaks. If you are clear and confident in your rebuttal, displaying a high level of understanding of you’re responses and how their interact with the opponents case, I will give you higher speaks.

In terms of the actual numbers, they operate on a sliding scale based on how you performed in comparison to the other people in the round. I will rarely give lower than a 27.5 and will only give a 30 if you blow me out of the water.

Also if you are able to sneak in at least 2 lines from Kanye West’s first verse on Runaway, I will give u a 1 point boost at minimum. If it flows well, I will give you a 30.

Also if you appropriately use the Bruh #2 sound effect in round at the right time, I will boost your speaks.

Hi!

I am a new parent judge.

Please speak clearly and speak slowly. Remember, I have not done research on this topic so make sure you explain all your points thoroughly. Also, I will probably not know many debate terms so please try to avoid these. This is especially important when weighing. Please do not just throw debate words around, please explain your point. Also, signpost so I can follow all your speeches. If you want me to vote on a certain point, keep bringing it up.

Most importantly, make sure you are always being respectful each other during round.

Thank you!

School Affiliation: Wayland High School

This is my first tournament as a debate judge. I am aware of the general format of the debate, but do not know much about the context of debate as I did not participate in debate myself when I was in high school. Nevertheless, I look forward to this experience and learning more from you guys.

As for a few general rules:

Please respect your fellow competitors. There is a difference between attacking someone's argument and being disrespectful. Any harmful or profane language will not be prohibited.

Crossfire: I don't expect to flow crossfire, but the strength of your crossfire will be taken into account when I give speaker points.

Your ability to explain why your argument outweighs your oppositions is the #1 aspect I am looking for when deciding who wins the debate. Make sure to highlight your key points and explain how they undermine your opponents points.

Finally, remember to have fun. Although I've never done debate before myself, I know from talking to my siblings that it can be stressful. If you can provide an original and engaging argument that makes me interested and invested in what you are saying, then you've done a great job.

I am a novice parent judge, having judged only two other tournaments, and it's been a year since my last judging. I ask that debating teams talk clearly and not try to rush through your arguments. If I cannot keep up with your argument I might raise my hand asking you to slow down so I can take notes.

Progressive paradigm, please be respectful (especially during cross!)

I have three years of debate experience in mostly PF and a little bit of LD.

TLDR: I'm a flay judge. Talk slowly, explain your arguments well, don't be mean.

Theory

- I know the smallest possible amount about theory/progressive arguments but I'm willing to vote on them if they're explained well and not frivolous.

- If you're going to run theory in PF, check with your opponents before the round begins. I come from a small school so I do not like when theory is used as a way to get one up on a debaters that don't have access to training on those arguments.

- You can check abuse without running fancy theory! If your opponent is doing something harmful SAY SOMETHING. My tolerance for misogyny/racism/homophobia/etc is very low.

Speaks

- Generally be polite. I like pleases and thank yous and wholesome small talk.

- I have a VERY short attention span so I like roadmaps, game plans, sign posting, etc. Make this easy for me please.

- I like to laugh! Make (respectful) jokes and tik Tok references.

General

- If you're going to read an argument that references triggering topics (sexual assault, gun violence, suicide, etc), you need to issue a content warning at the top of the round and allow your opponent to opt out if they want to. This can be as simple as a quick "hi just so you know, I'm going to be referencing sexual assault at the top of my second contention. Is that ok with everyone?" If you don't have an alternate case I'm ok with everyone switching side/speaking order to accommodate.

- If you're going to refer to me/ask me anything plz call me Abi. Calling me "judge" is just very uncomfortable.

- Please have fun! My favorite rounds are when I can tell all the debaters in the round are enjoying themselves and want to be there. If you’re miserable debating a round, I’m probably miserable judging it.

don't be an ass lol

paradigm

Hi! I'm a senior at Newton South and a third-year PF debater. My most distinguished accomplishment is placing last out of (I think) 8 teams at a local Big Questions Debate event.

Overall:

The most important thing is to be nice and respectful to each other. If you're mean, I'll be sad.

I appreciate smart debating. For example, don't read 10 responses to a contention that's 100 words. Also, if you're word efficient but speak slowly, I value that more than speaking really quickly but having a lot of filler words.

Example of smart debating: implicating a dropped response on one contention as terminal defense on another contention later in the round. Do things like that!

IMPLICATE RESPONSES AND WEIGH TURNS

Lay [----------*-] Flow

Tech [---*--------] Truth

General:

My least favorite thing is unwarranted claims. Do not abandon logic. Even if you extend a warrant in rebuttal in summary, it must be in final focus too. Don't make assertions without warranting them.

The flow is still important to me, so make sure you don't drop anything important.

Make sure you implicate arguments the way you want to me understand them. If you don't make a connection for me, I won't make it for you.

Make sure you have a narrative that you extend through summary and final focus (second rebuttal is a good place to explain your narrative too).

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine, and I will only call for evidence if someone tells me to.

**I also think that you can find evidence for a lot of things that aren't true, so when you read evidence you must warrant it**.

Speed:

I'm good with speed, but that doesn't mean you should speak quickly. I value the quality of argument over the quantity of them, so if you're speaking quickly to get a lot down on the flow, it's better to speak slower and go for fewer but more fleshed out argument.

Weighing:

Please do it. At the end of the round, you probably won't be winning every single argument, so weighing makes my job easier and will probably make you happier with my decision.

Second Rebuttal:

Frontline all offense (link+impact turns, dis-ads, offensive overviews). You don't need to respond to defense, but it can be very strategic to do so in rebuttal.

Summary/Final Focus:

Collapse in summary and convince me why that argument is the most important one. Final focus should mirror summary, with the only exception being that first final focus can have defense from rebuttal that wasn't extended in first summary.

Cross:

Ask questions and don't steamroll over each other. I will listen to cross, and if you're all speaking over each other I can't understand.

Speaks:

If you're rude in cross, personally attack your opponents, or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything else offensive, I'll give you low speaks.

Theory:

I think that running theory in PF is extremely exclusive. Not everyone has the resources to learn about these arguments and how to respond to them.

If you want to run it, you must extend it throughout all speeches or else I will think that you are just running the theory to win rounds. You also must define the terms you use, like "role of the ballot" or "permutation." This is not only helpful to your opponents, who may not know what these terms mean, but it's also helpful for me to understand what you're saying.

Hi - I am a parent judge who has judged five prior debate tournaments. I did not participate in debate in high school. Please speak clearly and not too fast, so I can follow your arguments and supporting evidence. Sometimes less is more. I understand some debate lingo but using less in your speeches will be better for me. Thanks and I look forward to your debates!

This is my first time judging, I’ll try my best to give unbiased judging results. But in order to do that, you need to follow these guidelines.

1. Please speak clearly and not too fast

2. If there’s difficult technical word, please try to explain it. If I can’t understand, I can’t judge fairly.

3. Please not to be rude.

4. Organize your sentences in a logical way. Avoid simple repetition of your content over and over.

Hello,

I am a parent judge, please speak slowly, take the time to explain your positions and most of please be respectful to each other. Good luck!

I am a new parent judge.

1) Be sure to signpost during your speeches.

2) Please don't spread - if you are talking fast I won't understand then won't be able to give you appropriate credit

3) If you are rude in crossfire you will lose both speaker points and the round.

she/her

i am a freshman studying computer science and economics at NYU. i debated at the high school level for 3 years at Acton Boxborough and this is my second season judging debate. i am currently debating on NYU's parlimentary debate team (very lax, though).

a couple of things:

- please preflow before round

- go at a slow/normal speed

-idrc about cross unless you bring it up in speech. however, please be respectful during crosss.

- warranted response + card>warranted response> card dump. your reasoning is more important than this random article you found that agrees with you.

- no new responses starting second summary for me plz (this includes frontlines disads etc)

- signpost, weigh, collapse on the same thing during summary and ff

- most importantly, please do not be discriminatory/rude or that is auto L and lowest speaks possible. please read a trigger warning if you are running sensitive topics for case/any argument. if you read something sensitive wo the warning and the opponents point this out, you will lose the round. if you're not sure if something is triggering ask me and your opponents.

- i don't know how theory, kritiks, any progressive debate works. if your opponents agree that you can run progressive arguments and you make sure that I understand what you are doing (a risk that you can take), then you can run them. however, do not have high expectations that i understand anything. if i don't understand what you are doing, i probably will let the other team win.

- have fun! enjoy debate, make new friends, and learn something new, whether you win or lose. i know debate can be rly competitive and tough but as long as you are learning and becoming a better debater, you win in the long run :))

im excited to judge your round! good luck and see you soon. if you have any questions, concerns, etc. you want me to know before or after the round, please email me at gloriazhu66@gmail.com (if you are asking me for flows after round please let me know what team you are on and what round i judged you).

- bonus tbd

I am a parent judge without prior experience. The rules are simple:

1. Speak clearly and not too fast

2. Please keep jargon to a minimum, but if you have to use it - make sure to introduce all the new concepts and acronyms

3. Time yourselves - I won't stop you if you run overtime, but will stop taking notes.

Good luck!