Yale University Invitational 2021
2021 — NSDA Campus, US
Varsity Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 on local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. As a college freshman I coached and judged extensively last season. I'm a second year out now. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer.
-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.
-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.
-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).
-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.
-Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.
-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will default con, but before that I will try to find some miniscule piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).
-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!
-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time
-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.
-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.
Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)
-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!
-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.
-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!
-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).
-Quality of responses>Quantity of response
Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:
-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.
-2 exceptions tho:
A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.
B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")
-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.
-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence
-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.
-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.
-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.
These are the scenarios I call for evidence:
A) A debater tells me to in the round
B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true
C) It is important for my decision
-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.
Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!
PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot.
LD - I prefer traditional LD rounds.
I am a parent judge, so I should be considered lay. I have a daughter in PF and I am a lawyer, so speech coherence and style is probably going to matter more to me that someone who is more technical. I cannot understand spreading so please put quality over quantity. Please be respectful of everybody, rudeness makes the round much harder to watch and judge! Please weigh and warrant clearly and extend anything you want me to evaluate. I will take notes, but still try to make sure the most important things are identified or I might not vote on it.
Additionally, please include me on all email chains if you make them. My personal email is email@example.com, please feel free to reach out with any questions.
I'm a flow judge and have debated 4 years of PF at Trinity School. Went to TOC '21.
Defense is not sticky - if you want defense to flow through, you need to extend it in every speech. That said, if first summary extends defense that wasn't frontlined in second rebuttal, second summary is too late to bring up a new frontline.
Screaming "Smith 16" is not an extension. If you want me to vote on something, you need to extend the warranting as well as the evidence.
Talk as fast as you want as long as you're clear (but I find that when people talk fast, their warranting suffers; I will not vote off blippy warranting).
No theory unless you actually, genuinely care about the issue (see TOC finals 2021 for a good example).
Bonus points for any jokes made during speeches :)
Hi I'm Ben
I participated in Public Forum Debate at Hackley for 4 years. I am now a freshman at the University of Chicago. In general, I am a flow judge and you should treat me as one. If any of this is unclear or if you have any other questions, please ask me. I am happy to answer any specific questions about my preferences. Please read my paradigm so you can ask me specific questions though.
Above all, have fun. Debate is supposed to be fun. Make me enjoy watching the round. Make jokes. Put a smile on. I promise whether you do well or poorly you will still be happy if you genuinely enjoy debate, so enjoy debate.
For those of you who don't have much time or want a simple version of my paradigm the most important things know are:
-you bring me Chipolte (order specified later on), you will get 30s.
-don't misrepresent evidence
-implicate your responses to your opponent's case
-defense is sticky (so you don't need to extend defense they don't respond to)
-Summary and Final Focus must be about the same content
-tell me where you want me to flow your responses (signpost)
-Weigh!!!! Weigh in comparison to your opponents weighing
-Collapse on one argument
1. In second rebuttal, ideally all offense from the other side in the round should be covered. This means you should respond to their case, and any turns and disadvantages they put on your case in first rebuttal.
2. I like to hear weighing in rebuttal, it makes my life easier and the quality of debate higher.
3. I can handle speed, but a disclaimer: the faster you go, the higher the chance that I misunderstand what you are saying. Be reasonable with speed.
4. Please read the dates on any evidence you read.
5. If you misrepresent your evidence with paraphrasing intentionally, your speaks will suffer. Be warned.
6. I'll evaluate theory and k's but I won't like it. They don't really belong in Public Forum, but if you win them, I'll vote off of them.
7. Card dumping is great, but if you don't implicate your cards to their case I'm not going to evaluate them. This also means you have to warrant your cards.
8. Defense is sticky. If defense isn't responded to, you don't need to extend it.
9. Offense is not sticky. If you want me to evaluate offense, it must be in summary and final focus, and if you speak 2nd, in one of your first two speeches.
10. I will put my pen on the table during cross. If you think I am not paying attention during cross, it is because I am not paying attention. Cross is for the debaters to clarify stuff with each other, not to bring up new points or to grandstand for the judge.
11. That being said, don't be super rude or you will lose speaks. I am okay with wittiness/humor, I even appreciate it, but make sure you don't yell at your opponents or explicitly make fun of them, it is bad for the activity of debate and I will take away speaks.
12. Please signpost. If you don't tell me where on the flow you want me to write what you are saying, I will decide, and you might not like that. Even worse, if I can't figure out where to put it, I will just ignore it. You definitely won't like that.
13. Tech>Truth. I will evaluate the round entirely based on what's on my flow. I am not going to intervene. You tell me how to vote and why that means I vote for you, and I will evaluate the round.
14. Please weigh in summary and final focus. Not only that, comparatively weigh. This means you take your weighing and your opponents weighing and you explain why I should prefer your weighing in comparison with their weighing.
15. Collapse. If you go for your whole case, I am going to be really sad and the quality of the debate is just going to be worse. It also will make your weighing and extensions less clear.
16. Speaks: I think speaks are stupid and subjective and they don't promote the activity of debate, they promote the activity of public speaking. Thus, most of the way I am going to evaluate speaks is round strategy, vision, and cohesiveness in a team. Here is how that looks:
30- You collapsed on the right thing, and you weighed it with your opponent's case innovatively. All of the opponent's offense was responded to completely. You frontlined everything you went for. Final Focus built on, but was about the same content as summary. Both partners were on the same page the whole round.
29- You collapsed on the right thing, and you weighed it adequately with your opponent's case. You responded all of your opponent's offense, but you may have mishandled it somewhat. You frontlined everything you went for, but maybe it was a little rushed or done not well enough. Final Focus and Summary were about the same content. Both partners seemed pretty cohesive throughout the round.
28- You collapsed, but perhaps not on the right thing, and your weighing was not comparative. You may have dropped a turn, or a part of your opponent's case, but you at least weighed. You did not necessarily frontline all of your opponent's defense on what you went for, but the frontlining done was good. Final Focus felt a little bit disjointed from Summary, but they still were in the big picture covering the same thing. The partners seemed to be presenting slightly different worldviews at least, and may have interrupted each other in Grand Cross.
27-You probably went for everything, and your weighing was poor or nonexistent. Your defense was mishandled and you didn't respond to significant parts of your opponent's offense. There was nearly no frontlining even attempted, and the frontlining attempted was poor and didn't apply. Final Focus brought up new stuff and felt completely different than what was going on in Summary. The partners seemed very disjointed and probably interrupted each other in grand cross.
26 (This is nearly impossible to do)-You didn't even try to extend any offense and your speeches turned into just yelling nonsense at the wall. Defense? What's that? We don't need to talk about what our opponents said. Partners seemed to be close to a fistfight during prep time.
auto 26 (If you got a 26 this probably happened)- intentional misrepresentation of evidence or complete disrespect for the other team is a one way trip to a 26.
auto 30- since speaks are subjective and I like Chipotle, if you bring me a chicken burrito with no beans and white rice, cheese, green salsa, and guacamole from Chipotle (not Mo's or god forbid Qdoba), I will give you 30s unless you get an auto 26.
17. If you ask me to call for evidence, I will call for it after the round if my decision is contingent on it.
18. Extensions need to extend the warrant, link, and impact of an argument, and also frontline after you extend.
19. Oh yeah pls don't be racist, sexist, homophobic or any one of those kinda things i will give you lowest speaks possible!!! Don't be that guy or gal pls!
20. Trigger warnings and content warnings seem ideal when appropriate pls use good judgement!!!!! This is important stuff! If you are a novice and don't know what i mean bully your varsity debaters about it!
gbx- i’m on the west coast and it’s 6am for me, PLSSSS don’t go super fast in the morning my brain will not be full capacity
I coach Edina, debated for 3 years, and go to UChicago
Email me before the round if i can do anything to increase accessibility firstname.lastname@example.org
- tech > truth debate is a game etc etc etc
- If you're offensive or exclusionary you will lose the round
- I really don't like intervention. pls resolve all points of clash
- extend properly
- I like smart and creative arguments, and I like rounds that are entertaining
- I went to a small school and didn't run/learn progressive args, but I'm cool w you reading them. theory is fine; I'm not familiar w K debate so run at your own risk. you should probably slow down a bit, and if you're reading anything that's not mainstream it's prob good for you to explain it a bit more to me
- If you think I should presume you should make a presumption argument - i will not unilaterally default neg or 1st or whatever.
Go ahead and postround me - debate is supposed to be educational and if the judge can’t give a defensible RFD they prob shouldn’t be a judge
Have fun don't suck
I'm a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly. I don't know too much debate jargon, so I probably won't understand it if you refer to it in speech. Please try to be engaging during crossfire.
I like it when teams clearly articulate and present their arguments. The last few speeches are really important for me and are what I vote off of.
Please time yourselves.
During prelims, I probably won't disclose unless it is required.
I am a parent judge with no recent debate judging experience. Please be organized in your presentation -- I like solid arguments articulated clearly. Please don't talk too fast, mumble, speak softly, or do anything that would make it harder for me to follow -- give me a clear way to vote for you. I will not be disclosing results.
Be civil: if you use foul language, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.
Be considerate: If you ask a question in crossfire, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.
I look forward to hearing all of your presentations -- have fun!
I do not have debate experience from HS or College, having judged just a few tournaments. I prefer a medium rate of delivery, (not too fast) preference of fewer well developed arguments than many partially developed. It is equally important to have good communication skills as it is to resolving substantitive issues and one can make-up for (overcome) a shortfall in the other.
I am a logical thinker and feel a good debate/argument can definitely sway my judging decisions, regardless of my personal opinion on the topic. Compelling arguments also need some emotion, a good balance to both (emotion and logic) is key.
Treating others with respect and professionalism is important, it's a baseline expectation. Disrespect, will carry a significant impact on my evaluations.
I have over 15 years of experience in the field of education. I taught elementary education for 6 years, have directed several educational programs and am currently an instructor at the University level. I have judged 2 HS tournaments and 4 MS tournaments.
Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.
I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)
Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.
Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.
(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)
^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea
Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.
Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.
Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.
Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.
Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.
Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.
RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.
K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.
Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.
Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.
Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.
Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!
I am a lay first time parent judge. I know little to nothing about the topic, so please explain things in depth. I won't let outside biases influence my decision, but I am also not versed in the intricacies of technical PF, so leave fancy jargon and progressive arguments out if possible. Speak clearly and slowly, and keep your own time. I want to be on the email chain(I prefer email over a google doc). My email is email@example.com
When you come into round, clarify who the speakers for each school are, along with other relevant info like sides and speaking order.
Kempner '20 | Stanford '24
or just facebook message me
4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice
***Update for Zoom Tournaments: Slow down on authors and tags in all speeches. If you are worried about speed, I'll take speech docs and follow along. Clarity>>>. if you are flight 2, preflow/flip before and be ready to start
FOR STRAKE RR OR ANY RR: I WILL NOT EVALUATE PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION UNLESS IT IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE TOPIC, i.e don't read disclosure or paraphrase bc u didnt do any prep
also if u debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)
also if ur tournament isn't running on PT, plz be considerate on early rounds, it's early out here
- Debate is a game so tech>truth
- Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
- I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
- give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
- defense isnt sticky
- Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
- if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
- absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics
- Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
- For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
- I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.
- Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
- I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
- Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
- Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability
- Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
- case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
- do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
- Dont do "extend our link"
- for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
- please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
- this also goes for arguments that are conceded
- First summary
- Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
- Second summary
- This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
- Defense must also be extended
- Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
- Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive
- Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
- I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
- If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
- I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
- You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
- Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it
- there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate
- Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
- Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
- I will vote for one team and one team only
- I will evaluate theory
- Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
- Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
- Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
- I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
- I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.
- if you decide to read theory (that i dont like) I will cap your speaks at 26.5, i'm really not trying to evaluate theory but do what you want to do
- i will not evaluate K's with no link to the topic and tricks. I don't know how to evaluate this stuff and I also think these arguments are insanely exclusionary.
- K's with links to the topic are your best bet with me if you're gonna read these kinds of arguments
- at the end of the day, it's substance or you're scared. I think topical progressive arguments make a lot of sense and are good for the activity, reading stuff like the Good Samaritan paradox ain't it.
- Sam's Thoughts on progressive debate align really closely to mine, It's a long read but I think it definitely goes into a lot more detail than what I have here.
- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading
- This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices
- Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech
- From cara’s paradigm ““If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell/link or impact turn/ double turn/ terminal defense/, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20.”
- if you call "harv*rd" Stanford of the East, you get +0.5 speaker points (this has to be if you had evidence from that organization, it cant just be random)
- I agree generally with Nibhan, Nilay, Raj and Abhi when it comes to general views on debate (tech specifics are on my paradigm)
- im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
- if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important
I debated on the nat circuit in Public Forum for three years at College Preparatory School.
Qualified to Silver TOC 3 times.
I'm not opposed to you running any sort of theory, but I don't have much experience with it so make sure you explain well.
Be respectful to each other please.
Please weigh your impacts, it makes my job so much easier.
If you have any more specific questions, feel free to ask before the round!
Hi! I'm a first year at UChicago and did PF for 4 years at Dougherty Valley High School. My pronouns are she/her/hers. Pls add me to the email chain at firstname.lastname@example.org Super quick run down for you: I’m a flow judge (that being said, I don’t really have experience with theory and Ks, so it is probably in your best interest not to run them) who highly prioritizes inclusivity- if you say anything/make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc I will vote you down even if you are winning the debate. Debate should be fun and it only is when it is educational and safe for everyone participating! More specifics are below. Feel free to message me on facebook/email me if you have any questions!
- Collapse!! This makes it easier for both of us when you don’t go for every argument in the round:)
- Weigh- this can even start in rebuttal, but makes it easier for me as a judge to vote. If you don’t tell me which arguments I have to prioritize, I have to make that choice myself.
- Clear extensions (only extending your impact is not an extension). Warrant out the most important arguments you’re going for in every speech
- Second rebuttal should frontline 1st rebuttal +respond to their opponents case. 1st summary doesn’t have to repeat defense that hasn’t been responded to
- Please read cut cards in constructive, not paraphrased evidence
- I will probably call for important/contested pieces of evidence at the end of the round —> if your evidence doesn’t say what you said it did, I will intervene
- Don’t do weird debater math/blow things out of proportion —> if x increases by 1 to 2, don’t say there was a 100% increase in x without saying the sample size
- Please be civil in grand cross! It’s very useless but majority of the time that’s just because there are 4 debaters screaming at each other
- Don’t exclude people because you want to appear dominant —> try and make it as educational /clarifying for you as possible!
- Besides that, I don’t evaluate crossfire so if you made an important point, bring it up in a speech
- These are based on what you say more than how you say it
- Being unnecessarily rude and toxic in round will tank your speaks
- Being funny, good weighing and warranting, being respectful are all ways to boost your speaks
Stating something that contradicts what your opponents have said isn't debating; it's disagreeing. AKA implicate your responses and don't repeatedly extend through ink.
I look for the path of least resistance when I'm deciding a round.
If you misrepresent evidence I will drop you.
Theory: Generally, I don't think theory belongs in PF debate. I think PF is unique in the sense that accessibility is an integral part of the activity and the speech times are simply not conducive to this kind of argumentation. That being said, out of respect for all debaters and arguments alike, I will listen and flow theory and evaluate it in the round. I've even voted for a team who ran it once. All I'll say is the only thing worse than running theory is doing it badly. If you don't know what you're doing and you don't actually have a deep understanding of the theory that you're running and how it operates within a debate round, I wouldn't recommend that you run it in front of me. Lastly, if you're going to run theory you should know that I really value upholding the standard that you run in and out of rounds and across all topics.
Debated in PF during all four years of HS for Bronx Science, Policy for a year at Emory.
Judged PF, LD, and Policy since like 2013.
I am a parent judge. I was once a debater in high school (that was a while ago!), and have judged few public forum rounds. Please signpost clearly. Do not run theory. You can speak relatively fast but don’t spread.
I debated PF for 4 years at NSU University School in South Florida. I vote off the flow and am fine with speed (as long as you’re clear). Here are some more specific considerations.
Extend both warrants and impacts, and weigh anything you want me to vote off of. I vote for the team that has given me the easiest route to the ballot without intervention on my behalf.
For first speaking teams, I'm fine with terminal defense being extended from rebuttal to final focus.
Offense must be extended in both summary and final focus for me to vote for it.
I'll call cards if you ask me to call them, or if I have doubts about them.
Please signpost throughout the round!! This especially applies to the summary/final focus speeches — if I don't know where you are on the flow, it is much less likely I flow everything you say.
I determine speaker points based on (1) clarity (2) civility (3) strategy.
(humor is also appreciated)
Feel free to ask any other specific questions before the round starts.
I'm Anna (she/her). I'm a first year student at Brown University. I coach PF at Durham Academy where I debated from 2018-2021.
I flow and will vote off of any argument as long as it has a warrant. Arguments without warrants the first time you read them are not arguments.
I like smart arguments. I'm not going to be very happy if you turn your 10 sec blippy turn in rebuttal into the voting issue of the round. I am going to be happy if you make nuanced, well explained arguments that show you are thinking about the topic deeply instead of just throwing things onto the flow.
I also like smart debating. Think carefully about the strategic choices you are making in the round and don't be afraid to take a risk or implicate arguments in creative ways.
1. I look to weighing first when I make a decision. If you are winning weighing on an argument and offense off of it, you have my ballot. That said, it must be actual comparative, well-warranted weighing not just a collection of buzzwords.
2. I love a good narrative. At the end of the day, I will vote off the flow, but I am not a calculator and am still affected by persuasion. I really appreciate teams who slow down especially in the back half and extend a clear story.
3. Please collapse and extend all parts of whatever argument you want me voting on(UQ, L, IL, IMP) in both summary and final focus.
4. Implicate defense, especially in the back half. If it is terminal, tell me that. If it mitigates offense so much that their impacts aren't weighable, tell me that. Impact out and weigh turns.
5. Second rebuttal does not have to frontline defense. I think it can be strategic to do so. If second rebuttal doesn't frontline - defense is sticky for first summary.
6. I will evaluate both theory that is run to check back against serious abuses/protect safety in round and Ks that are made accessible to everyone in the round. I will not evaluate disclosure/paraphrase theory or tricks.
I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Please read content warnings with anonymous opt outs for sensitive subjects. Please respect your opponents and their pronouns.
Finally, I really appreciate humor and wit. Making me laugh or smile will give you a really good chance at high speaker points.
Please don't hesitate to ask me any questions you may have before the round or message me on Facebook if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible you.
I am a parent of a PF debater and have judged a number of PF rounds at both local and national tournaments.
Please speak clearly at a normal speed, identify your main arguments at the beginning (roadmap) and make clear transitions between your arguments. I will flow the arguments, so it will benefit you if what I flow makes sense when I look back over it before filling out the ballot.
Clear rebuttal of points is appreciated. Also, be clear in your FF and explicitly identify the main reasons I should accept your argument and, (if appropriate for the particular debate) why I should not accept your opponent's argument.
Clash is good and much appreciated in CF rounds but keep it civil, respectful and, substantive. Be clear in CF rounds about what you are asking and what you are disputing. Let your opponent have their chance to ask/respond.
Fewer, well-developed contentions and rebuttals will always win over numerous, hurried, or difficult to comprehend contentions and rebuttals.
Debate jargon is fine in limited quantities, but please don't get carried away with it. The arguments you pick, the effectiveness of your rebuttals, and the development of both will win or lose the debate, not so much your characterizations of your weighing or impact. Similarly, avoid disputing your opponents' arguments based primarily on procedural technicalities rather than their substance.
Call for evidence selectively and strategically when you think or know it will benefit your argument or rebut your opponents'. Use evidence carefully and be prepared to produce it quickly if asked. Make sure the time in the debate is (mostly) spent debating, not exchanging cards.
Be professional and prepared, but please have fun.
Recent graduate in mechanical engineering; have been judging debate for three years. I did PF all through high school back in Virginia. If you ask me to rap to you in Chinese, I will, but my unashamed love for foreign languages and music has not translated into a good singing voice.
1. If you say something that's obviously wrong, and I know it's wrong, I think you can rebut that with "that's obviously wrong" instead of needing a card.
2. I want to see teams interact intelligently with each other's ideas in CX; no one should be trying to "dominate" the discussion or monopolize the allotted time. I will reduce speaks if you are aggressive/disrespectful.
3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.
4. Stay on topic - I focus on stock issues.
5. It's okay to appeal to my morality, or any other non-quantifiable metric, when weighing. Correspondingly, I won't always weigh on your favorite metric just because it's quantifiable.
6. If your speech contains related rates, ratios, etc. (such as: X% increase in something will cause a Y% increase in another thing) please translate them into absolute figures so I can judge their scale. Relevant XKCD.
7. Help me with the teen lingo. Are people still Tebowing? Do teens still make Ridiculously Photogenic Guy memes while listening to Gangnam Style and Nyan Cat? Do you call stuff "major keys" and would you "do it for the Vine"? What's going on with Fortnite dances?
I am an old-school LD judge. I want to see a clear values clash and hear some philosophy, not just a long list of cards. Cases that are not grounded in ethical theory will have a harder time winning me over. Kritik cases are fine so long as they are not abusive -- that is, so long as they leave the opposition some ground from which to argue. A kritik of the resolution is fine, but generic kritiks that could be run against any case / resolution are not.
I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading in LD. I believe that it is the bane of the event. Certainly it is an excuse to toss out a lot of abusive one-way hash arguments. Anything much faster than a typical conversational pace is likely to cause me to stop flowing your case. Make your point with QUALITY, not quantity.
Tech cases are unlikely to impress me. Win with strong arguments, not technicalities.
Semantic arguments are fine, but keep them on point; don't descend into trivialities.
8 years of experience judging various forms of debate and speech events on local/state/national levels. Currently the coach at St. John's Upper School.
Consider me a tab judge for events: no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round.
I will entertain and vote on all arguments.
Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.
Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.
Ask before round any further questions you might have.
I am a parent judge who, a long time ago in high school, was a policy debater. I also competed in Speech events. I am a big fan of speech and debate. I have one year of judging experience of both Public Forum and Speech events.
Public Forum Debate: I enjoy hearing vigorous debates about a topic and encourage clear arguments and civil engagement. If you speak too fast or are uncivil you will loose me. In this virtual environment, some times technical issues may arise and I encourage everyone to have patience and keep your cool. I expect clear arguments and thoughtful questions cross-examination questions.
This is my fifth tournament as a judge. I am the parent of a debater.
I don't like when debaters talk fast and speak at a normal rate and clearly so that I can understand your arguments. I can not award points, if I can not plainly hear your arguments. I may not always be looking at you when you are speaking that is because I am taking notes during the round. I find notes help me with decisions, following your flows and awarding speaker points. I'm am a numbers person so providing (stating plainly) empirical data as evidence will move me toward your agrument.
Please remember to be respectful of your opponents and keep to the time schedule. Please do not interrupter speakers during cross, this will cause a loss in speaker points.
Above all do your best, have fun and enjoy the process!
Hello! Here are my LD & Congress paradigms, the events I coach & most frequently judge.
My PF and World Schools preferences are pretty standard so I don't have a full written paradigm here but you can feel free to ask me any questions before the round if I'm your judge in those events!
Debate experience/about me: I'm a first-year history teacher in the School District of Philadelphia, but this is my fifth year as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in New Jersey where I coach our Congress program. When I competed, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + the tiniest bit of speech at Lafayette College for 3 semesters before I switched to coaching.
M.S.Ed - UPenn '21
B.A. English & Government - Lafayette '18
The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with most arguments in round. I'm pretty tab- it's my job as a judge to evaluate everything you put in front of me, and above all I want you to run what you think is your best strategy! A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.
Speed: I can go however fast you want to go with the caveat that online tournaments are generally not conducive to top speed. Slow down a little when reading the evidence tag if you're extending cards by author name. I'd like to be on the email chain (email@example.com).
DAs: I like disads and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't like when they have huge, totally unrealistic impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. If you're impacting to nuclear war in a round about plea bargaining, I'm not going to buy the link story. Impact calc is very important but make sure the impacts are realistic/we don't have to make huge jumps on the internal links-- debates are way more interesting when I'm voting on the risk of something that could actually happen. This, of course, does not apply if the resolution specifically lends itself to an extinction scenario, e.g. the nuclear weapons topic or an environmental topic, but you know where the line is!
T/Theory: I don't love a theory and especially a topicality debate because I know it's a timesuck like 97% of the time but if you must, you must. Please save it for instances of genuine abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.
Traditional: I grew up on a traditional local circuit back in the day so I'm a good judge for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!
Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am old and need you to err on the side of overexplaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and again, just explain anything that's more niche. Plan affs? Absolutely yes; I did NFA-LD for a while and that's all we ran. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. I'm here to listen- just tell me where to vote.
And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an aggressive speaker, but keep it collegial before & after rounds, and please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting someone less experienced, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for. You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.
The short-ish version: I did Congress during my junior and senior years of high school (2012-2014) and it's what I primarily coach now. However, because of my LD-heavy background (and because like many other women in debate I too have known the pain of putting in the research only to get dropped for "sounding aggressive"), my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is, of course, an important part of the overall package, it is called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't providing something new or doesn't have the same quality of evidence. This may make me a little different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor!
Other notes: If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks. I love a fun intro as long as it is creative/specifically links to the topic (please I hate the generic canned ones). I will not hesitate to dock points for any speech under 2:45; use your full 3 minutes of allotted time to provide new content. I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair and knowledgeable and you'll rank.
I am a parent lay judge. Analytical and thoroughly explained responses are preferred, but if you have evidence make sure to tie it back to your response. Speak at a normal pace, with minimal fluency breaks. Make sure to keep your own time, and be respectful during cross. My RFD will be based on the arguments I understand the most.
My core belief is that the winning team should make a logically better argument than the other team throughout the round and convince a lay judge like myself. The arguments need to be made logically, and with solid evidence. Speaker points will be judged based on clarity and appearance in cross. Rudeness/speaking over others will immediately bring your speaker points down! I also believe in teams taking the responsibility for ensuring opposing team's prep time and card management and in addition to managing their own.
Just do whatever ur comfortable with :)
For online debates, add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org. Please send constructives in the email chain at the very minimum.
American Heritage School ‘19
Georgia Tech ‘22
I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.
Tech > truth, but the best teams win on both fronts.
- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.
- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make the argument that presumption flows aff.
- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.
- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.
- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but I hate bad weighing. Avoid:
1. Weighing that is not comparative
2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments
3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and probability weighing is usually defense that should've been read in rebuttal
4. New weighing in second final focus. I may still evaluate it if there's no other weighing in the round, but not too heavily.
- I will call for evidence if it's contested and key to my decision. I may also call for it if I'm personally interested to see what it says but in this instance it would have no effect on the decision. I generally tend to believe that reading evidence promotes intervention.
- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will probably drop the argument unless there's very good warranting.
- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.
- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.
- I have a good understanding of theory, but I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K.
- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good.
- I usually prefer to judge debates about the topic instead of something like paraphrasing, disclosure, or spec theory. However, I will still do my best to fairly evaluate these arguments despite my personal qualms of strong theory debaters bulldozing inexperienced teams. I may not reward speaks based on it, but I definitely don't intervene.
- I think speaks are arbitrary and debate is always better when it’s fun. Ask me to provide a really random question before the round begins and if either partner can answer correctly I’ll give a 30.
- You can respond to first constructive in the second constructive.
- I will bump speaks if you send a speech doc with cut cards.
- Humor’s great, especially sarcasm
- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine
- Postrounding is fine
- Preflow before the round
- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.
in my 3rd season as an assistant coach at the Blake School (MN) but I spend most of my time working a non-debate job meaning I do a lot less topic research than I used to
cornell '21 - ndt qual
carmel '17 - local circuit pf/policy
excited to watch you debate!
tl;dr: I can keep up with speed (re: policy), but I enjoy clear explanation more. Typically, tech over truth and flow-oriented. Will only intervene if I have to. No racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, and transphobic language or arguments. Do what you would like. I think judges should adapt to the debaters, not the other way around.
That said, preferences are below. I hardly ever judge anything that's not PF these days, so paradigms for other events are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RK_g6krFLxB1sblzfjMlo8OsnV5ip4GLnpRgnKlgKdM/edit?usp=sharing
---non-negotiable rules: one winner and one loser, fixed speech times, and equal distribution of speaking time among partners (unless someone is sick or has to leave the room). Won't vote on what happened before I hit start.
---don't be rude. love sass, but don't ridicule others
---strike me if you are going to engage in sexually explicit performances
---very facially expressive; don't mind me
---slow down for theory
---I know nothing about your rep. I only debated for schools that had 0 rep (and 0-1 coaches). This doesn't make me pull for either the small school or the big school. Arguments are what matter.
---don't steal prep (calling for cards doesn't require speaking to your partner). I do my best to time it. Decision clock is ticking.
---don't clip. L25s if you do. Misrepresentations don't stop a round, but that ev won't count. Fabrication stops a round. Will defer to tournament rules/tab. I dislike evidence that's written by debaters/coaches about debate.
---number and label arguments (turn, non-unique, etc.)
---presumption flows the way of less change from the status quo (but debatable)
---if you want me to catch something in CX, say it in a speech. I'm usually writing comments/reading ev although I'm listening.
---reducing something to 0 risk is possible but very hard. I woiuldn't vote NEG if the 2NR/FF was ONLY case defense.
---line by line > cloud/implicit/overview clash. Won't do work for you.
---I only flow off what I hear. I do not read speech docs (of analytics) during the speech or after the round. I will ONLY read evidence. Don't spread what you paraphrase because it's usually incomprehensible.
---care a lot about impact calc (no really like I care a lot). I will always look at frameworks first. Answer turns case/prereq arguments!
---persuasive skills influence the flow (organization, delivery, flowability). I don't care what you wear, etc.
---arguments in the FF should be in the summary. Obvious implication/spin isn't new. No sticky defense. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; otherwise, it's conceded.
---to kick a contention, you need to concede a specific piece(s) of defense. Or the other team could still get turns since not all defense gets you out of all offense.
---provide evidence in under two minutes or it's an analytic. Evidence should have full citations, not just a url. Cards > paraphrasing. PF ev often stinks, but it sometimes doesn't come down to ev quality only. If you strike a card from the flow, that's not reversible even if you find the evidence later.
---amenable to arguments that the AFF doesn't have to defend the entirety of the rez in every instance.
---strike me if you're debating for a social experiment/reading a meme case.
---pet peeves: 1) "time starts [on my first word/now]" 2) not timing your prep/cross 3) asking questions about a judge's paradigm during the round 4) debater math 5) kicking community judges on a panel.
---will evaluate all arguments, including theory or a K. Tell me if I need another sheet of paper. See below in policy section. If you aren't comfortable going for theory/K's, don't do it just because I'm judging. Comfortable voting on disclosure. I think the wiki is good. So does Blake.
I don't think debaters need to discuss most (or perhaps any) of the following to have a (good) theory debate. All of the following are negotiable. But it may be useful to know my preferences.
1) default to text of interp and competing interps > reasonability where the standard is gut-checking the interp for in-round abuse. Explaining your standard for reasonability (if you have one) is helpful. Counter-interps do not require an explicit text, especially in PF, where there is no expectation to know the terminology. CX is a great time to ask (the other team, not me). Teams answering theory should forward their view of debate. I am willing to accept spirit of the counter-interp if a counter-interp text is not read.
2) theory experience: witnessed (judged and competed in) more theory debates than I have fingers. "Have you won a 1AR in circuit LD/policy?" No, because I was a 2A. In the 2AR, I have gone for (and won and lost) theory such as PICs bad, condo, PIKs bad, and 50 states fiat bad.
3) terminal defense is sufficient under competing interps. Presumption would flip. I would prefer offense.
4) start theory ASAP, e.g. as soon as the violation happens
5) willing to listen to a RVI in PF/LD because of speech times that could mean skews. Default to no RVIs.
6) "theory without voters?" If the voters are made on the standards debate, that's fine. If there's no voters at all, the team answering theory should say so and then I would vote that there was no impact to theory.
7) will intervene against shoes theory/anything that approaches that threshold
9/13/21 - minor updates post-grad + striking cards irreversible + whole rez
i debated circuit pf from 2017–2020 and ran Beyond Resolved.
email: zaramchapple (at) uchicago.edu
i'll do everything i can to make this an accessible and enjoyable experience. have fun and i'll adapt to whatever round you give me :) if you don't know some of the more technical jargon don't worry—it's probably unimportant and won't come up in your round. that said, i'm happy to clarify anything, and you can also check out these websites for explanations: (1 2).
unless y'all want me to act otherwise i'm tech. i evaluate rounds by looking at framework > weighing > links into that weighing > floating offense > default first.
non negotiable things: don't make bigoted arguments/use bigoted rhetoric, don't misgender people, don't otherwise be rude, and read content warnings.
the feedback that i give to nearly every team is to collapse on fewer arguments, especially on weighing and defense. apologies for the gruesome analogy, but a shot to the heart is way more dangerous than five shots to the foot.
─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* :☆ﾟ. ───
running list of things i have been asked/feel free to ask questions that aren't answered here:
what does a perfect speech look like to you? well explained analytical responses (i dislike card dumps and prepouts. i want to hear how you're answering the arguments your opponents read, not just how your team prepped out the tagline), weighing that actually compares both worlds, prioritize your weighing mechanisms, organized speeches, implicated defense in every speech, and bonus points if it's still accessible to someone who hasn't debated before. here's an example of a 30 speaks speech on the NATO/Baltics topic.
kritiks: i think progressive argumentation is interesting and important, and i will evaluate arguments as long as they are conveyed in a way that is fair to your opponents (they need to be able to understand your argument and they need to be able to respond to it). i think pf isn't structured to handle ks well, and performance debate is awesome, so i'm not strict about sticking to a shell format. that said, it's ideal if argument provides an alternative beyond "reject their case". i don't make assumptions about anyone's identities nor do i expect anyone to disclose this information to read an argument. if you're reading a k about a marginalized group as someone who isn't part of that group i just ask that you don't do it to win/to be a savior and i hope that your advocacy for said group can go beyond the debate round.
evidence standards: i like paraphrasing when it's done right. i urge you to also have the direct quote (summarizing a sentence or two is fine but a page or more is iffy). it's better to read weaker evidence than to misconstrue it. i'll only look at evidence if you ask me to and i'll drop the argument if the evidence is misrepresented.
paraphrasing/disclosure theory: i'll evaluate it but i won't be happy.
other theory: if there is in round abuse, articulate it to the best of your ability and i'll evaluate it—it doesn't have to be in a shell or anything. i don't like frivolous theory but read it if you want to and the other team is comfortable with it. theory is not a rvi (just because you beat back theory doesn't mean you automatically win the round.)
new arguments: no new offense in summary or final focus. nothing new in second final focus. weigh sooner rather than later.
speed: i cannot process what you are saying over 225ish WPM.
zodiac sign: cancer sun, scorpio rising, pisces moon.
if i ask you a question can you add it to your paradigm: maybe :)
I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years and consider myself a flay judge. I'm trained as a scientist so logical argument supported by evidence is what I am looking for. I usually read up about the topic beforehand, so I have some knowledge about it.
I am more tech over truth but the argument needs to be believable for an easier win (I am a little more tech than you might imagine)
Please collapse and weigh your arguments against your opponents' arguments (Quality > Quantity)
I flow but I won’t flow if you’re too fast or hard to understand
I vote of the flow but good speaking always helps
I will call for cards usually if they are important for your case in the round. I take evidence very seriously and will drop you if I find it misconstrued.
Theory: I know nothing about theory or how to evaluate it. If you run it there is a high probability that I won't evaluate it.
Don’t be rude or offensive and don’t interrupt during cross or you’ll get dropped
I debated PF on the local and national circuits for Acton-Boxborough from 2017-2020, and I'm a sophomore at Brown University! Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can do anything to make you feel more comfortable in round. Overall, I consider myself a pretty generic flow judge. Feel free to ask me any questions before round!
Both the warrant and impact need to be in both summary and FF for me to evaluate an argument; extending evidence without a warrant is a no-go, as is frontlining without extending at all.
2) Tech v. Truth
I'm tech over truth, but clarity of extensions, frontlines, and quality of evidence are going to become increasingly important the more far-fetched your argument is. If the debate is incredibly close/muddled/unclear (for example, if both sides have very mitigated, messy offense remaining at the end of the round), I'll probably default to the more truthful argument.
Teams will often cite conflicting evidence and argue back and forth over it. If neither side tells me why I should prefer their evidence, I'm willing to call for cards and compare both sides, but I consider this low-level intervention and will do so unhappily. Statements that begin with "prefer our evidence because..." are super compelling. Also, I don't flow card names, so you should tell me what your evidence says when you're extending, not just the author's name.
4) 2nd Rebuttal
Must frontline turns, everything else is optional.
5) 1st Summary
Please extend defense! If it wasn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, however, you can be very quick about it—just be clear and concise.
Needs to be comparative for it to count. Meta-weighing will probably win you the round if you have some offense and weigh first! However, if you aren't winning your argument, you're not going to access any weighing on it. If you want me to vote off a turn, make sure to weigh it as well! Weighing should be in both summary and FF.
7) Offensive Overviews & DAs
Discouraged in 1st rebuttal, absolutely not OK in 2nd rebuttal. My threshold for responses to them is extremely low for those read in 1st rebuttal, and I won't vote off one that's read in 2nd rebuttal.
I believe that speaker points should be exactly what the name suggests: a measure of your public speaking skills in the round. Strategic in-round decisions will be reflected in my ballot. Any problematic behavior in the round (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc.) will send them plummeting, followed by an L. Watching a super aggressive/rude debate is also super frustrating and will hurt your speaks. Overall, I consider myself pretty generous with speaks, so don’t worry too much about this!
Although I can handle speed, I still prefer a medium-paced debate (especially online, when you might cut out for half a second occasionally). I'm guessing I start to lose content around 225 wpm, and I max out at 250. I also dislike debates where a team goes excessively fast to dump an absurd number of responses and then extends what their opponents drop. Taking advantage of inexperienced opponents using speed is unacceptable. In general, I'll manage if you signpost well.
10) Trigger Warnings
Please provide them if you're going to discuss any sensitive topic. If you're unsure, read one.
I don't believe arguments of this nature belong in PF as an activity designed to be as accessible as possible. Hence, if you are clearly running it just to win the round, I will tank your speaks and possibly drop you.
12) Topic-Specific Jargon
Although I'll try to have some level of understanding of the topic, but definitely don't assume I know every acronym you're using and/or something super nuanced, so avoid topic-specific jargon as much as possible. Feel free to ask me any questions before round!
I will always analyze the round to the best of my ability and honestly get very stressed about making the right decision, so please don't post-round me—I am trying my best, just like everyone else, and the burden is on you as the debater to win my ballot.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Please be nice to your opponents. If you upset me I will be upset. Good luck everyone! :)
I debated public forum for all 4 years and was captain of Eagan High School pf debate.
Couple things to know about me:
I am currently a Junior at the University of Minnesota studying History with a minor in Chicanx studies.
I believe public forum is the most accessible form of debate meaning anyone should be able to come into the round and understand what is going on. It is an art form to be able to put complex topics into accessible words for the public to understand.
Therefore, go slow and dont be disrespectful. I strongly prefer traditional pf, if you do anything more you risk me losing you on the flow but I am able to handle someee speed.
I am against inaccessible academia and believe if you are using jargon (includes theory and Ks), you are doing pf wrong.
I make sure I listen intently on the summary speech as I was a second speaker in Highschool.
High school debate should to be a place where no one feels attacked. do not run anything sexist, racist, queerphobic, transphobic, classist, etc.
Remember: its just debate! use debate for experience and to expand your knowledge :)
*assume I don't know the topic or the literature/arguments surrounding the resolution*
1. Tech v. Truth
- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech
- always assume I don't know anything
- generally not an interventionist judge
Disads - cool
Counterplans - cool except in PF
Kritiks - cool
Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesn't know how to respond (@ novices/middle schoolers)
Topicality - will rarely vote on it
3. Speed + Evidence
- any speeds fine but plz it's public forum shouldn't be spreading
- I probably won't call cards but you never know
- plz don't plagiarize + know the rules of evidence
- will give high speaks for nice round :)
- if y'all chill expect 28+
- if y'all rude/disrespectful/purposely making someone feel uncomfortable expect nothing higher than a 25
5. Basic stuff
- please weigh
- I ain't tolerating problematic behavior in my rounds. You know what this means. Please be respectful, this event ain't life or death depending on a win.
- I beg, please don't excessively call for cards. I take the whole round into perspective and a card probably will not change my decision and if it will, I'll call for it myself. However, do what is in your best interest.
6. Digital stuff
- Usually tournaments say camera on (I believe) but if not I don't care whether or not your camera is on or off. I will keep my camera on unless something wild occurs.
- If you experience lag I may interrupt your speech for you to repeat something. Don't be flustered if I ask you to repeat something it is important for me to hear it :).
- Say if you need me to accommodate something. I'm fairly flexible as long as it is agreeable with everyone and the tournament staff/guidelines.
Hi. My name is Michael Chu and I am currently a freshman at Yale studying computer science. I did three years of PF and one year of LD at Syosset High School, so you can expect me to be able to tolerate some of your debate antics and vote off the flow.
First and foremost, speak clearly and make sense. If I cannot hear or understand what you are saying, then your arguments are fake news. I will also have little to no background knowledge on whatever topic is being debated, so please explain your arguments thoroughly. Remember, I'm a cs nerd, not a poly sci one.
My partner in high school (shoutout bgao) was the "self-proclaimed king of card dumping". Although I hated that as a debate practice, I found it hilarious, so feel free to debate however you want, just read your tag lines clearly and slowly. I would appreciate it though if you took the time to explain and synthesize your evidence.
Truth > Tech. I refuse to buy any BS arguments. I also don't expect you or your opponent to have a million cards/blocks in response to every possible argument under the sun because that is so sweaty. I highly value the ability to come up with logical responses to unique arguments and will give you very nice speaks if you can do that.
Do not run progressive arguments in front of me. In my eyes, top-tier debate needs less barriers to entry, and so people who go to expensive debate camps and think they are sooooooo cool by running Ks and tricks are just elitist a--holes. Moreover, spreading makes debaters look and sound like choking geese squealing for air. My one exception to all of this is if there is clear abuse in the round. Only then, will I be receptive to theory. But even so, I will still be actively looking for reasons to not buy your shell.
For the sake of being concise, here is a list of things that annoy me:
- miscut evidence: I will drop you if its bad
- debater math: your math probably sucks
- assuming everyone in the debate space is liberal: you're wrong, just make good arguments
- talking/gesturing during your opponent's speeches: shut up, sit still, and just listen
- aggressive shouting matches: you look like an idiot, debate is not that important
Now, a short list of things that I like:
- Jokes/banter: be funny and I will increase your speaks
- Food: cater the round and I won't complain
Well, if you've made it this far, congrats! This is the part where I tell you to just have fun. People take debate wayyyy too seriously. Just live in the moment, your four years in high school are shorter than you think. I promise that if you view debate more as an experience than a competition, you will have more fun, forge lasting memories, and even make life-long friends. See you in round.
I am a parent judge.
Speak slowly and clearly, and have a clean debate.
I do not wish to be part of an email chain or online document.
Feedback will be in the ballot. Please leave after the debate has ended.
I did two years of Public Forum at Byram Hills and two at Lincoln Sudbury High School.
I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in second rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.
To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.
The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.
Overall, I was not super experienced in a lot of aspects of tech debate. I think I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.
I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. Do with that what you will. I'd say generally don't change your style of debate for me, but be conscious that I might not be on the same page as you if you're being a big tech boi.
I don't know as much as I probably should about theory and K debating. I'm open to voting on them, but I'll let you know right now that I am not super informed and you'd have to explain it to me like I'm a dummy.
If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.
Dear All: As you can tell from judging history, I judge LD sparingly if at all over the last few years. My role in the activity is mostly yelling at people to start their rounds. Take your chances with my abilities to follow what is taking place. I don’t have predispositions to vote for anything in particular. My views that “bait theory” incline me to not want to vote for you if that is your primary strategy is still as true now as it was five years ago. Outside of that, I am open to whatever you can do well and justify that is interesting.
Since I am judging more PF these days:
Clear ballot story. I care about evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case constructive, you had better have tagged, cited, and lined down carded evidence to support what you say. If you are looking for evidence in your prep time or in cross ex or I have to wait 5 minutes for you to find something before prep time even starts, you are debating from behind and your speaks will reflect your lack of preparation.
CX: Don't talk over each other. They ask a question, you ask a question. Bullies are bullies. I don't like bullies.
If it wasn't in the summary, it doesn't become offense in the Final Focus. Sign-post well. Have a ballot story in mind.
I hate generic link stories that culminate in lives and poverty. The link level matters a lot more to me than the impact level. Develop your link level better. High Probability/Low Magnitude impacts > Low Probability High Magnitude impacts.
Don't be a baby. If you and your coaches are trying to get cheap wins by bullying people with Ks and Theory and hand-me-down shells from your teams former policy back files, go to policy camp and learn how to become a policy debater. Disclosure is for plan texts. If you are running a plan, disclose it on the wiki. If you are not, no need to disclose. Disclosure privileges resource-rich debate programs with a team of people to prep your kids out.
I am an Americorps service member with less formal debate training.
My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation.
Speed and jargon are a no. The point of public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone, and convince them why your side is right. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.
Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.
I have been judging PF since 2010.
Please do not speak quickly - I will not be able to follow you.
I place a premium on well-supported, "real-world" links, which are to me a prerequisite to your impact, no matter how large.
I am a judge from Newton South HS, just outside of Boston, MA. I have been judging PF since 2010. I debated in high school in the early 80s. But don’t let that fool you.
FLOWING – I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. As you go faster, however, my comprehension drops. In addition to speed, I have trouble with the following: (1) Evidence tags: Because I am unable to catch most evidence tags, I probably won’t know what you are talking about when you remind me that “Smith in 17” told me something important in your partner’s last speech – unless Smith is a big deal in the round and you have talked a lot about that evidence. (2) Short argument tags, especially in the two-minute speeches, in which debaters often introduce their own argumentation structure. If you say something like, “On economic growth, remember…”, I will end up spending 5-10 seconds trying to figure out what “economic growth” argument you are referring to (and perhaps even what side of the resolution you are on). As a result, I may miss a few of your responses. It’s more helpful if you build a bit of the link chain into your tag. For example – “Our opponents say more H-1b visas boost jobs and hence economic growth, but remember…”
IMPACTS AND LINKS – I find that which side wins my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. If I don’t find your link chain compelling, I will have a hard time voting for you, even if there’s something very big at the end of that chain. Argumentation that contributes to link chain credibility includes: (1) Inferences based on rigorous analysis of empirical data – i.e., a well-designed statistical analysis. If you can explain why the data in the analysis apply to (i.e., can be generalized to) the scenario being debated in the round, and why the statistical methods mitigate the risk of invalid inferences, I will find you to be compelling. (2) Consistency with history / the world we live in – For a lot of arguments, there are no rigorously conducted statistical analyses. For example, for few statistical studies look at how policies may influence public opinion, politicians, the policies of other countries, and so forth. But if you can identify pertinent historical precedents and argue that they inform the scenario being debated in the round, I will again find you to be compelling.
LESS COMPELLING ARGUMENTS – (1) Just because Professor Smith says something is true won’t necessarily convince me unless I understand *the basis* for Professor Smith’s beliefs. Yes, I’m looking for a warrant. But hopefully, you have more than your *own* explanation for Professor Smith’s conclusion. It’s best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. (2) Pasting together links from different sources often produces less compelling arguments. For example, Source A tells us that certain policies are politically divisive; Source B says that political division leads to federal gridlock; and Source C says that gridlock delays funding for the military and undermines national security, which, naturally, causes nuclear war. A problem with this sort of link chain in my mind is that the different sources use similar phrases to describe various types of events, but they aren’t really talking about the same things. For example, is the “divisiveness” described in Source A really equivalent to the “political division” described in Source B? And is the political division described in Source B emblematic of what has caused gridlock, as documented in Source C? If your opponent fleshes out these limitations, and if they have an alternative, more plausible description of how the real world works, that could be a problem for your position.
BOTTOM LINE – Fast argumentation challenges my ability to follow you. Stretched link chains challenge my tendency to believe you. You are best off presenting an intuitive narrative (i.e., a story that is consistent with how the “real world” works) and using that narrative as your foundation for establishing why your position is more credible than your opponent’s.
I am a parent judge.
I try to flow, but am not an expert. I find off-time roadmaps helpful, for those who use this technique.
Impacts are important as are link chains - the link chain should be well-supported and believable.
Please speak at a reasonable, conversational speed to ensure that I am able to easily capture all of your points.
Please plan on keeping your own time - I will also use a timer, but appreciate when debaters track the time independently and stay within the allotted amount.
I prefer not to disclose outcomes in the room, in order to keep the event on track. I will submit comments for all participants via tabroom.
I look forward to judging great rounds - best of luck to everyone!
Conflicts: Potomac debate teams
I've done nats circuit public forum for 2 years. I have 0 topic knowledge on this topic.
- Add me to the email chain Runzhec@uchicago.edu
-Frontline in 2nd rebuttal
-No new arguments in 2nd summary or final
-Anything in final focus must be in summary(extend ur link chain), defense isn't sticky, except new weighing is fine in 1st final
-I do not flow cross fire, if you want something from cross say it in a speech
- Please collapse and do COMPARATIVE weighing!!!
-Evidence ethics: I will only call evidence if I am told to
-Speed: If you go over 250wpm I will need a speech doc
-Theory: If you run theory please follow your own interp in your other rounds too
-Ks: I haven't evaluated K debate that much, I'm comfortable voting off it but run at your own risk, don't expect me to make the right decision
-Presumption: I default presume whoever lost the coin flip unless someone gives me a warrant for a different form of presumption
Speaker points(you can still get 30s even if you do none of these):
I will increase your speaks if...
-If you read cut cards(tell me if you do)
-Give brief off time road map
-Camera is angled so I can see your full face
Lose speaks if...
-Ur discriminatory in any way
-Talk over your opponents in cx
-Bad evidence ethics
-Say an arg goes conceded when it wasn't
-Takes over a min to find evidence
[Background] I am currently at UT Austin majoring in Finance & History. I also debate for the University and work as an Assistant PF Coach at Seven Lakes. Previously, I debated at Vista Ridge in PF reaching State & TOC. Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Vista Ridge (TX), Interlake (WA). Add me to the chain: email@example.com
[Evidence] Evidence ethics can make or break a round. I expect properly cut cards that can be produced in a timely manner at your opponent’s request. If you take more than 1 minute locating “evidence” I will run your prep time. I do not expect disclosure full-text or otherwise and I am also okay with paraphrasing, though I do not prefer this. I am open to evaluating and voting off disclosure & paraphrasing theory.
[Argumentation] This is really up to you; you’re debating not me. However, I do prefer weighing or framing coming out of the 1st rebuttal. 2nd rebuttals are expected to frontline AND collapse. I prefer line-by-line summaries and I don’t have a preference for how you treat final focus. Please make your weighing comparative. Repeating you impact and tagging “scope” and/or “magnitude” after it is not weighing, it’s just proving to me you know how to memorize a number.
[Speed/Speaks] I am okay with speed so long as you don’t sound like “hghghhdhhhss.” Speaker points generally range from 28-29.5. This is largely based off my subjective view of how articulate and convincing you sound as a debater. Although I am not extremely invested in crossfire this will affect your speaks. Please avoid being an unnecessary prick in cross unless it is tied to making a tasteful joke. Feel free to cut GCX for +90s of prep to both sides.
Feel free to ask questions after the round, I am here to help you learn and improve.
Other paradigms I agree with: Jack Hayes, Jonathan Daugherty, Max Fuller, & Nahom Tulu.
Hey, I debated PF all four years of my High School so I am a flow judge but I value pretty speaking as well. Sneak in some clean rhetoric that'll make the speech more enjoyable and I'll award good speaks. I love listening to rhetoric lol but don't fill up your entire speech with it. (you can still get 30 speaks w/o rhetoric so dw)
I hate theories and any style of debate that extends out of the normal scope of PF, I prefer to hear a normal debate. If you read theories, Ks, or anything like that with me, I am likely to down you. I despise spreading more than anything. If I can't understand you, I can't up you. I also flow all rounds so make sure you are signposting.
Rebuttals can either be line by line or grouped- if you are grouping just say what your grouping. Both summaries have to mention and extend cards from rebuttal if you want to use them in ff, if they are not mentioned I will not flow them and they will be dropped in ff.
Weighing and impact calc are super important, show me why I should vote for you and explain why your impact is more important than the other team's. Give me a clear voters.
If you guys want to share evidence in the middle of round, set it up before round- I'll look at cards at the end of the round if you ask me to. I'll probably give oral critiques if time permits and disclose at end of round.
also time yourselves and time your own prep I won't be doing any of that.
Name: Liz Dela Cruz Contact Info: firstname.lastname@example.org PF Paradigm (Updated 021621)
Expirence: I debated and coached Policy (Cross-ex) debate for a number of years. If you want to know what I did, scroll down, I have my Cross-Ex (Policy) Paradigm below.
I am a flow judge! I will provide a Google Doc Link to use. I prefer this to an email chain because I there is a delay in getting emails sometimes. I also don't like putting the evidence in the chat function. It is easier for me to go back and review the evidence.
I also usually always pop up a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my Paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.
1. Debate is about having a good time and learning, please be respectful to everyone. Just remember that this is just a round and there will be another. Do your best and have fun.
2. Due to my policy background, I like Signposting. Please let me know where to go on the flow. Think of my flow as a blank slate. You tell me what to write and where. Moving contentions or switching from Pro flow to Con flow? Tell me.
3. I will vote for FW, independent Voting issues, and Pre-req arguments. But there needs to be enough substance for me to do so. If you decided to go for any of these, make sure to extend the case evidence that is needed to back it up. If not, it tends to be hard for me to vote on it.
4. I debated both theory and K in debate. If you want to do it, I am fine with it, but make sure to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic and your corresponding side.
5. If there is something said in Cross and you would like to use it in the round I am fine with it. But you need to make sure that you bring it in the speech to make it binding.
6. Just saying cross-apply case doesn’t mean anything. Or extend …. Card from case- give me substance and warrants for why you are extending it for me to consider it.
1. Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the Case to the summary and from the Summary to the Final Focus. It is key make sure to extend and explain.
2. You can only use what you extend in the Summary in the Final Focus.
3. I am a big fan of weighing! Magnitude, scope, impact analysis, substance love it all. Makes my job easier.
4. Break it down! Give me voting issues!
1. I did policy, speed is not an issue. Please don’t ask me if you were to fast. I can hear you.
2. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If you are concerned about me not flowing your speech, then slow down and enunciate!
3. I will not tell you clear or slow, those things are for you to work on as a debater. If you are worried about it, then do speaking drills before the round and speak slower.
Policy (Cross-Ex) Paradigm (Updated 041715)
Affiliation: SouthWestern College, Weber State University
Paperless Ish: Flashing is Preferred: Prep time ends when you hit "save on the USB". Flashing is not considered part of prep time. If you take more than two minutes to save on the USB and get files flashed over, I will ask that you "run prep time". If you are going to do an email chain and would like to put me on it feel free. My email is listed above. If teams have spandies and tubs and USE 60% or more paper in a debate, will get some sort of candy or asian yummyness!
Experience: I was a policy debater for SouthWestern College. We run socialism and sometimes not socialism but more often than not it’ll be socialism. Did I mention we run socialism?
Voting Style: Do what you want but make sure it’s on my flow. Be clear and concise and tell me how I should interpret the round. Don’t make the assumption that I’ll randomly agree with your arguments. Spell it out for me so that there is 100% chance I get it. Spend time on the overview or underview. Make it very clear where I should be voting and why. This is something that makes my life easy and the life of all judges easy. Paint me a picture using your arguments. Give me reasons why I should prefer your position over theirs. The clearer the debate is the easier it will be to vote for you. Heck clear up the debate if it gets messy you’ll get nice speaker points. See how I’m telling you all to do the work? That’s because the debaters not the judge should be deciding how the judge should judge. I’m an open canvas. Paint me a nice picture. Just no nemo.
Speed and flowing: There’s fast and then there’s fast. As much as I’d like to admit I can keep up with a giant card dump in the neg block with a billion arguments, it’s just not going to happen. I can keep up with most speed reading. It’ll be easier for me to get your arguments down on my flow if you slow down during the tag/citation so I can actually hear it super well. If you spread your tags and I’m not keeping up, that’s on you as a debater. Arguing when you lose because I didn’t have that card or arg flowed when you made it a blippy mess isn’t going to do anything so don’t even try. That being said, I keep a very concise flow. And what you say in the 2nr and 2ar will be what I vote on. Policy
Argument Issues: Case: I feel like sometimes case debates get overlooked a lot. If you’re aff, don’t be afraid to use your case as giant offense if the other team is only to go 1 or so off. Good cases can swill outweigh da’s and K impacts if done well.
Non-Traditional Affs I evaluate Non-traditional Affs the same as traditional ones. However, there are things I like clearly defined and explained: 1. Explanation of advocacy 2. Role of the Ballot 3. Role of the Judge 4. Why is your message/mission/goal important.
Topicality I don't really care to much for T, but I will vote on it. I haven't voted yet on T being a reverse voting issue, but I do believe that T is a voting issue. I also tend to lean towards competing interpretations versus reasonability. Although, if the argument and work is there for reasonability, I will vote on it. Especially if the other team does not do the work that is needed on Topicality.
Theory Just saying things like "reject the team" or "vote Aff/Neg" typically doesn't do it for me. I would much rather hear, "reject their argument because it … blah blah blah." On the other side, saying "reject the argument not the team" is not enough for me to not consider it. I need solid reasons to reject the team like abuse. Actual abuse in round based on what was run is very convincing.
Performance I like watching performances. Since I judge by my flow, it allows me to separate myself from how I evaluate the round. Please note: Just because I am expressive during the debate does not always mean that I am leaning to your side. I am a very expressive person and thus why I judge strictly by my flow. So if there are points that you want me to highlight, pull them out in the later speeches. It will help with clarification and clash.
Kritiks I like kritiks. That being said a lot of mumbo jumbo gets thrown around a K debate. If you want me to pull the trigger on the K I need to know how it functions. Explain the rhetoric of your K to me in the block. Don’t assume I know what your alt is and what it will do in conjunction to the aff. That’s your job to make sure I know. Explain what your alt is and how it solves not only the impacts you read but also the aff’s or why the aff’s impacts don’t matter. Don’t assume that I’ll vote for “reject the ***” alts. Spend time in the block and in the 2nr how your K works in the round. Give me a picture of what the world of the K looks like and what the world of the aff looks like.
DA Not all disads are created equal. The Aff should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is a must.
CP I believe that CPs should compete with the 1AC. Not only does this give better clash, but it also allow the 2A to defend their Aff.
Please don't say anything you know to be objectively and/or blatantly false. The more convincing side wins.
“A thought well conceived will be enunciated clearly, and the words to say it will thence flow easily” (Nicolas Boileau, 1636-1711)
In other words, things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever you want me to comprehend and vote on needs to be clearly articulated.
I will flow the round and will vote per the flow. It is in my view your responsibility to make yourself understood. It is your responsibility to explain your argument in an intelligible way.
You are at liberty to set the criteria by which you will be judged. Please do so and then explain why and how you think you won according to these criteria and why your opponent lost and why their criteria did not produce a winning outcome for them.
The goal of any debater should be to persuade the judge, that they conveyed their argument in a way that was more logical than their opponent, and that they effectively poked holes in the opponents logic.
I’m truly equally open to everything. I judge on the capacity to present and defend ones argument. The debate room is in my view totally disconnected from the world since anything argued here will have absolutely no implication and since debaters were imposed the side of the case to defend.
Please feel free to ask any questions before the round!
Current college student, did PF for 4 years of high school so I'm familiar with speech times and the general structure. Try not to go too fast and speak comprehensibly.
ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 5 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".
I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!
I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.
Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche`; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!
Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.
Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.
There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".
NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.
In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.
I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!
I did PF for 4 years, willing to vote on pretty much anything, but my understanding of Ks is not that great so you're going to need make these arguments very clear if you're running them in front of me. But, as a matter of principle, I'm not a PF purist and I think these arguments are good to read. Even though I'm not familiar with these arguments if you feel that you can explain them well enough for someone not well versed in the literature to understand I encourage you to read them. I'm probably going to give you good speaks just for reading something interesting and that I haven't heard a million times.
Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. I don't need specific card names to be extended, but it never hurts.
Make my job as easy as possible by clearly articulating why you've won the round - write the ballot for me in summary and final focus. Even though I'm flowing and doing my best to pay attention, I'm not infallible and so if the summaries and final focus are just going over a bunch of arguments without clear contextualization of how they relate to the ballot, I'm going to struggle to decide the winner. In practice, I think this means doing clear weighing and then after extending your arguments explaining why they win you the round.
Don't do debater math.
You should give content warnings if you're reading any sensitive content in order to make the round as safe a place as possible for all participants.
+.3 speaks for disclosure on the wiki. Just let me know you've disclosed before the round.
Defense isn't sticky anymore with the 3-minute summary
Second rebuttal needs to frontline.
If you want to concede defense to get out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read.
No new weighing in 2nd FF, unless you're responding to weighing from 1st FF.
For online debate:
I understand the need for calling for evidence, especially in an event where disclosure is not the norm. But the exchange of evidence needs to be efficient. This means you have cut cards or pdfs easily accesible for the evidence you read and should be able to pull it up in a reasonable time. Email chains should be standard and when emailing cases, cards should be included so y'all don't have to call for all the cards in each other's cases.
La Costa Note: I will disclose if I can, but that's unlikely for flight 1 rounds-- sorry :(. If you want feedback or a decision you can reach out to me after the second flight.
Current Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.
Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: email@example.com
TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom).
Background: Debated for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020.
Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.
After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).
Here are some more specific notes
- I can handle around 250-260 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 250.
- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less.
- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F.
- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.
- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.
- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I prefer it to frontline terminal defense, but that's not mandatory.
- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary.
Summary & Final Focus
- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.
- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't really sticky). I will evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.
- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.
- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.
- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (ie, don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be avoided). Disclosure, paraphrasing, and misgendering theory are all fair game.
- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.
- I'm not super versed in the literature, but I've voted on Ks before and I have a decent grasp on them
- You need to at least have bare-bones extensions of the link, impacts, and alt in summary and final focus, along with framing/ROB
- Prog weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing, link weighing, and structural violence framing.
- Saying the words "strength of link/impact" is not weighing .
- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that.
- READ CONTENT WARNINGS PLEEEEEAAAASE. Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt out no matter how you do it.
-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.
How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.
- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it isn't strategic.
- Politics Disads/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- politics is life, so run whatever so long as it isn't objectively offensive
- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.
- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.
- Tricks: Nope.
- Impacts to animal/plants: Yeah I would vote on this with a framework.
I am lay judge and a parent of a public forum debater at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School. I am very familiar with public policy issues, but am not an experienced debate judge.
I do not understand very fast speech, so please look for my pen. If I am holding my pen up, it means I cannot understand you and you'll need to slow down. I am able to distinguish the quality of the argument from the quality of the evidence being presented. If you use low-quality evidence or cherry-pick your evidence in such a way as to misrepresent the original source, I am likely to notice. Please be prepared to substantiate your use of evidence.
In summary and final focus, please identify each of the arguments that you are asking me to vote on and, most importantly, why your team's position is stronger or better supported than your opponents' position. Please also consider explaining why, even if I were to accept an argument made by your opponents, I should nevertheless vote for you.
I feel strongly that debate should be a civil and inclusive activity, and I try to treat all debaters fairly. deduct speaker points from those who shout at their opponents or speak over them in an attempt to drown them out. I add speaker points for those who demolish their opponents' arguments without raising their voices.
I want debate to be a fun and cordial experience for everyone. Good luck!
Second year out from Hawken and did pretty well at ToC my senior year (he/him is fine). Auto 30 speaks if you strike Grant Griffin. email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Warrant your links, warrant your impacts, and warrant your weighing. If you do that I'll be happy :)
if you don't I'll cry :(
i don't care too much abt cards. warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded (unless its a statement of fact)
honestly just give me a stronger narrative and i'll probably pick you up
"please read warranted arguments, please do actual analysis, please use your brain instead of just mindlessly reading cards" -- someone based
"Also I really like when people talk about the implications of certain responses on other arguments in the round because I think that type of analysis is difficult and shows the difference between people who just read their teams prep and people who actually understand debate rounds." -- someone based x2
in order of importance, i'll vote on: 1. strongest link into best weighed impact, 2. literally however i feel, 3. whoever was nicer in crossfire 4. unweighed arguments 5. arguments with links I don't understand :)
please give anonymous opt-outs, and let me know how i can make the round safer for you
slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow arg
Signposting rebuttal well = + speaks, people usually suck at this
I won't vote for your arg if I'm not able to re-articulate how you get from the resolution to your impact. so slow down for squirrely args
be 'hyper-specific' about what link/impact ur going for and how the defense u extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow
pleeaaaaasssee weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case
for cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things
after round, if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision
random details (just ask me before round if u have any specific questions):
examples are usually silly unless they're used to break clash / prove a certain actor's incentive.
theory is fine but not my favorite and i don't rly know how to evaluate it super well. same with Ks. progressive frameworks are fine tho. also framework should probably be in case, rebuttal is late
if I need a speech doc ur going too fast
DAs are fine within reason
2nd rebuttal should respond to all offensey-things in 1st rebuttal
defense is sticky from first rebuttal to first final.
First final can make new weighing, but second final can respond if its new in first final
Misscut ev = bad speaks
metaweighing can be good, just don't be too too silly with it. also be creative with weighing and metaweighing in general
i don't like judging disclosure/paraphrase theory but i am willing to vote for it
Blake '21, UChicago '25
Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.
- Pls run paraphrasing theory
- Send speech docs, its better for everyone
- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.
- I flow.
- Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.
- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are spreading long cards and not paraphrasing.
- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isnt sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it MUST be in both back half speeches.
- Please weigh.
- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, and Shane Stafford.
- Basically, go to Zoe Spicer's paradigm and do the opposite of everything she says. Unfortunately for her, to find her debate takes, you need to get a time machine and go back to the Jurassic era because of how ancient they are, so it shouldn't be much of an issue.
email@example.com AND firstname.lastname@example.org -- Put BOTH on the email chain and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.
- Full roadmaps in PF are stupid, just tell me where you're starting and then signpost
- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline, turns and defense
- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.
- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often then not, clarity matters more than WPM, I know debaters who speak super fast and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vise versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must because I probably will miss things). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.
- Pls send speech docs, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.
- Extensions: You need to warrant arguments when you extend them, I do not appreciate blippy extensions because you ran out of time, go for less and weigh it. It will be hard for me to evaluate a blippy extension, and I don't want to have to do that to make a decision.
- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy.
- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.
- I cannot believe I have to make this apart of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns.
- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows - Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - point being that PF should add a plan/CP debate but thats for another day.
- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.
- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.
- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), etc.
I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:
- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense. As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.
- Paraphrasing: The single biggest problematic content-related norm in debate today is paraphrasing. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:
a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.
b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.
c. if you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will be PISSED and not only will I drop you but I will end the round early and give you lowest speaks I can give. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.
d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is not a world in which someone who paraphrases even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me and to this day I have not given someone paraphrasing above a 28 so please, just dont.
- Evidence exchange: if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too
- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.
- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.
I'm receptive to all args, and I love the idea of progressive arguments in PF because it is about time that the community came around to allowing these types of arguments into the debate space. Used properly, they give a very good opportunity to making the debate space better, more inclusive and, more fair. Here are a few disclaimers for me personally:
- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.
- I am personally biased and I will vote for arguments if I believe they make the debate space better. This is mostly true for paraphrasing bad, although I am also biased towards disclosure good.
- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments
- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. By that I mean this, I am going to eval the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to eval it normally.
- RVIs are dumb, you don't get to win for proving you are ethical. I suppose I can see myself voting for an RVI if someone horrifically mishandles it, but if theres warranted clash on the issue of RVIs, I generally think no-RVIs.
- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other non-sense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.
- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.
- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it. IF YOU INITIATE PARA GOOD I WILL DROP YOU
- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow (with a shade to disclosure good).
- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.
- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.
- I want to hear this run more in PF! I hope the circuit comes around to it so please run them in front of me.
I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy Bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.
LAY PARENT JUDGE
I enjoy substantive debates about the topic. I appreciate when debaters clearly articulate the source of their evidence. Please go slow and don’t use jargon. I would really appreciate if when you’re debating you time yourselves and your opponents to keep everyone honest and allow me to focus on the round.
DO NOT READ: Theory , Ks, Tricks, or anything that isn’t SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE. I simply do not know how to evaluate it.
More important than any of my debate preferences is that all debaters have fun. I don’t want to watch a screaming match in crossfire. Please make sure the round is safe to everyone involved and don’t lose sight of the fact that we are here on a weekend to have a good time.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com.
PF Paradigm below policy
Previously worked as the ADOD at North Broward Prep. Debated at Indiana University and Ben Davis High School in Indianapolis, IN. I’m usually coaching or assisting with some program on the side – so I’ll have a decent understanding of topic literature. I also worked as a political research consultant and have a public policy degree, so tend to follow the wonkish debates pretty well.
Top of the paradigm is for Policy, with PF and LD afterward.
Debate is primarily a competition. It’s one that teaches us many values and influences how we develop as people, but is still a game with a winner and a loser at its core. That central truth produces debate’s best and worst outcomes. It can result in thorough, well-researched debates that delve into the nuances of a specific issue. Or it can produce scattershot 57-off strategies that rely on mistakes to have a chance of victory. I’ll evaluate both debates all the same, but enjoy one a whole lot more. That same truth can also make us view competitors with respect and admiration for their commitment to the activity. Or it can make us view them as our opposition, to be steamrolled and reduced to nothing whenever possible. I’ll evaluate the content of the arguments all the same if you’re rude and unkind to your competitors, but you’ll enjoy your speaker points a whole lot less.
No argument is ‘too bad’ to win in front of me. If it’s truly so egregious, it’s the burden of the opposing team to explain why in the debate. I try hard not to intervene and inject personal biases, but I do still have them and they influence the decisions I make. That being said – I’m still an educator at the end of the day, and debate is an activity for students in an academic setting. If you are actively hostile and bigoted during the round towards your opponents or a group of people, you will lose for that reason.
It's not too hard to get high speaks in front of me. Have a clear strategy, execute it well, and make the debate enjoyable for all involved.
I prefer critiques to include research about the topic, but it’s not required. Clear impact turns to the core negative standards on framework are vital – spewing nebulous and blippy arguments titled things like ‘Plasticity DA’ to T in the 2ac is terminally unpersuasive. If you’re not contextualizing your impact turns as direct answers to fairness, clash, etc. you’re in a hole from the start. Ideally, you will also present a straightforward and well explained vision of debate and develop reasons why it can preserve a limited argumentative venue.
I’m more persuaded by presumption arguments vs. K affs than most judges. 2AR’s tend to mishandle offensive, cruel optimism-style arguments and get themselves into trouble.
You need to explain how the aff’s C/I explodes limits and to what extent, same as you would against a policy affirmative when going for T. What style affirmative does it allow for? Why is it bad for debate, and how bad?
When I vote affirmative it’s usually because of a sequencing claim about dropped case arguments or an unclear response to the aff’s impact turns to framework impacts.
When I vote negative it’s usually because you win fairness is a priori and the only thing the ballot can resolve, that a limited model of debate internal link turns aff impacts through improved research/iterative testing, or that the Aff’s scholarship is included in your model.
iS fAirNesS aN inTernAL LiNK oR iMpaCT? Both. I don't care.
Not a fan of heavy theory debates, but I’ve judged quite a few. Definitely lean neg on conditionality – but willing to vote for it if competently extended and technically won by the affirmative. As a 2a, process counterplans were not my favorite argument in debate, and I tend to lean aff on competition arguments here. That being said, the topic is massive and there’s a ridiculous amount of affirmative ground – which does make me sympathetic to neg claims about their centrality + importance. Still not afraid to vote neg quickly and easily if you’re ahead on the technical aspects in this portion of debate.
Theory debates that rely on me to fill-in arguments where you have just said random technical debate jargon - nonstarter. You should slow down on your theory analytics as well – I often find myself missing nuance when it’s extended by reading blocks as fast as possible.
*** Public Forum Debate ***
I competed in Indiana in high school, and very much understand the frustrations of losing debates on new arguments, evidence spin, ‘I just don’t believe you,’ etc. in front of lay judges. I’ll try my hardest to purely evaluate the debate off of the flow, which means giving equal weight and consideration to arguments that are not traditionally made in Public Forum. I think judges should approach debate with an open mind, and be ready to listen to students who put just as much effort and thought into their non-traditional strategies as other teams have.
Indicating an openness to theoretical and critical arguments does not mean that you should necessarily try reading these arguments in front of me for the first time. I find myself judging very poorly executed strategies in these lanes pretty often, and the speaker points reflect it. Please stick with what you’ve been practicing, as this is the best way to win my ballot. Trying to punk another team on theory if you never go for it will usually not work out well for you.
Competing in policy for 4 years in college has left me with many, somewhat negative, opinions on the pedagogical quality of argumentation in PF. Research is often not presented to me in a clear and digestible way (read: cards), and I’ve been handed a 20+ PDF as the ‘source’ for an argument too many times to count. Saying ‘nuclear war doesn’t happen, MAD checks that’s Ferguson,’ and then handing me a piece of evidence with 2 minutes of highlighted text will not go your way. I won’t read deep into evidence that has not been explained and warranted during the debate, as I think that leads to pretty sizable judge intervention and more arbitrary decisions than one that remains flow-centric.
I’m a big advocate of disclosure in PF. The best debates are ones where one team has a thoroughly prepared strategies against a case, and the other team really knows the ins and outs of their own contentions. I’m not sympathetic at all to arguments about prep-outs – I’m terminally convinced that they’re good. I’m not convinced by arguments about how they hurt small schools – I competed at a very tiny college program that ONLY survived because of the wiki. I’m not sympathetic to arguments about people ‘stealing research,’ because it’s obviously not ‘stealing’ and lazy debaters that download wiki cases usually get beaten because they don’t know the nuances of the arguments they’re reading. If you disclose on the wiki, you will get a slight speaker bump. If you disclose pre-round, same deal. Note: this does not mean that disclosure theory is an auto-win by any means. You will have to technically execute it and win that disclosure is good during the debate – I won’t copy and paste my paradigm into the ballot.
Nitpicky other thoughts that may be helpful:
· Don’t take forever finding your evidence – especially if it’s in your own case. If it drags on too long (3-4 minutes) I will begin to run prep time. There’s clearly a reasonable window of time in which you can find a piece of evidence you claimed to have literally just read. If you can’t find it, you probably didn’t actually cut/read it.
· Don’t ever go back to your own case in first rebuttal just to ‘build it up some more.’ I will not be flowing if you are not making new arguments, and it’s a complete waste of time to rebuild a case they have not yet answered. There are some exceptions to this if you have framing arguments or whatnot – but 99% of the time you should just be answering your opponent’s case. To me, it reads as a clear sign that someone is a relative beginner in Public Forum when this occurs.
· Second rebuttal should frontline their case.
· Summary should include defensive and dropped arguments, but time should be allocated according to the other teams’ coverage.
· Impact framing arguments that are simply ‘X issue is not discussed enough, so prioritize it’ are not convincing to me in the slightest. You need to have a clear and offensive reason why not prioritizing your impact filter is bad, not just say that it’s important and people never give it notice. Ask yourself this question: what is the impact of your framing being ignored?
· Warrants beat tagline extensions of cards 99% of the time.
None of the above are ‘rules’ for how to go about earning my ballot. You could violate any one of the above and still win, but it’s likely only going to happen if your opponent is making major mistakes. Lastly, I think that topic knowledge wins just as many debates as a cleverly constructed case does. You should try your best to be the most knowledgeable person in the room on any given PF topic, because you’ll usually have what it takes to flexibly respond to unpredicted arguments and embarrass your opponents in cross.
**** Lincoln Douglas ****
Not gonna lie - much of the current state of this activity annoys me. An overreliance on missed tricks, opponents misunderstanding nonsensical K's, and underdevelopment of most arguments in the round seem to be how the LD rounds I judge go. I guess I'm a great judge for the activity since I flow and can keep up with speed pretty easily, but your speaks are going to suffer if what I described above is your primary strategy in the debate.
I prefer smart, nuanced arguments that are developed well throughout the debate, not 7-off with 4 theory shells sprinkled throughout the speech. Very open to and aware of most K literature - but be cautious of reading multiple K's or a K + DA strategy that contain clearly contradictory arguments. I'm not a big fan of perf con in LD, since I think the limited time window in the 1ar makes it pretty abusive for the aff to actually grapple with.
I'm not going to be familiar with the super in-the-weeds K or theory argument that is only a thing in LD. I come from Policy/PF world, and you should debate with this in mind.
Speaker point scale:
29.5+ - You’re debating like you’re already in the final round, and you deserve top speaker at this tournament.
29-29.5 – Debating like a quarterfinalist.
28.5 – 29 – Solid bubble/doubles team
28-28.5 – Debating like you should be around .500 or slightly below
27.5-28 – Serious room for improvement
Below 27.5 – You were disrespectful to the extreme or cheated. Probably around here if you just give up as well.
I am a parent judge who has judged pretty much every event offered by NSDA, so I will explain what that means for you, and what I’m looking for.
I value speaker points as much as actual technique, meaning that I prefer you speak clear and concise rather than fast and technical. If you chose to do the latter, however, I will be able to keep up and score accordingly.
I do not consider any arguments that haven’t been fully extended in final focus, nor will consider cards mentioned past first speaker’s summary.
I am not a big fan of theory, personally I think it is sidestepping the overall art of debate, so if you feel the need to use theory, make sure it is convincing enough for me to make an exception.
If it takes you longer than a minute to send a card, I’m taking the remained out of your prep time. When reading cards please say month and year.
Remember debate is supposed to be as fun and supportive as it is informative and important. Please be respectful of one another, I do not tolerate rude or hurtful comments.
i competed for 4 years in pf (Westwood HS)
i did some stuff
Im down for whatever in round
docs are generally preferred esp for online debate
i prefer any kritikal debate to be topical - id like specific justifications for why nontopical affs should be evaluated first if you want to read them
please put me on the chain firstname.lastname@example.org
I briefly debated in high school, so I am familiar with the PF format and style, but essentially treat me as a lay judge, since it's been a while. I put a lot of value on clear speaking (I did a lot of Original Oratory, too) and logical arguments that are more than just a series of statistics. Making sure you have made your (coherent) framework clear from the outset is helpful and important. Get your point across concisely, explicitly voting issues throughout the debate, don't be rude during cross, and we'll have a great round!
I will most likely give you a 28-30 if you:
- Speak loudly and clearly, no "spreading" please, the slower you speak the easier it will be for me to comprehend your arguments so please do not speak too fast
- Be polite to your opponent, if you mock/insult/rudely interrupt your opponent, you will lost speaker points. During cross-ex please try to be as polite as possible and do not get too aggressive
- Explain arguments properly, when explaining your arguments to clearly tell me where you are on the flow and explain terms such as "turn" and "non-unique"
Appearance: While it will not influence my decision, please respect the tournaments dress code and wear appropriate clothing.
Decisions: I will most likely vote for the team that best explains and extends their warrants and impacts. Please throughly explain why your impact matters and why we should solve for it as it makes my decision much easier.
Use of evidence: I highly value evidence and believe most of not all of your claims should have evidence to back it up. If you believe your opponents evidence is not credible please throughly explain why.
Debate skill and truthful argument: While a value a truthful argument over debate skill, presentation will impact my decision. If you do not seem confident in your argument it will make me feel the same way.
I debated PF for 5 years at Lakeville South. I now attend Washington University in St. Louis and coach at Seven Lakes High School.
Updated during Glenbrooks:
You need to read the author's last name and year of publishment for every piece of evidence you cite. I've heard "that's why the Washington Post says ..." enough. I will doc 0.1 speaks every time I hear an author name without the date, or when I hear an organization rather than the specific author who wrote the card. It's horrible evidence practices and really abusive to your opponents.
Email chains > google docs/any other method of sending evidence. Pls don't make me dig through a google doc.
Full speech docs help keep the round on time(will boost speaks to encourage this).
Warranting/weighing determines the result of most rounds.
Speed won’t be an issue for me but be responsive to your opponent’s requests to slow/clear.
Flex prep/open cross/skipping grand, etc. is ok with me if it’s ok with both teams.
Frontline in second rebuttal. Any argument not responded to in second rebuttal is considered dropped.
Defense isn’t sticky. If you want to talk about it in final focus, it should be in summary.
Collapse to one uniqueness argument, one warrant, and one impact. There are exceptions to this rule but generally going for fewer arguments while warranting them out more is a better strategy.
Similarly, choose 1-2 best arguments on their side to collapse on. Warrant the argument, respond to frontlines, and explain why it means you win the argument.
Comparative weighing is super important. If you win the weighing and have a risk of offense, I’ll almost certainly vote for you. Meta-weighing is necessary if you and your opponent are using two different weighing mechanisms.
I’ll vote for any argument that is well-warranted. Frivolous theory/tricks are annoying and my threshold for response will be lower than for a real argument.
I believe that disclosure and reading cut cards are desirable norms for the community. In high school, I read both disclosure and paraphrasing theory. That doesn’t mean I’ll hack for these arguments, but it is something you should consider. If you do not disclose and/or paraphrase evidence you should be prepared to defend those interpretations in round. I'm generally not going to vote on "our coach says we can't" so be prepared to defend disclosure/cut cards bad.
I don’t have a ton of experience with Ks, particularly in PF, but understand the basics of how they function. Read them if you want.
I am parent judge. I have only judged a few rounds before.
I prefer when debaters are clear and avoid speaking super fast.
If you speak too fast i will not consider all your arguments in my final decision.
I value the logic behind an argument and not just the quantitative component.
Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.
N-TOCvid-19 Update (Judging on Zoom™)
Given the new evidence rules on evidence exchange this year, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are new to everyone, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.
I probably won't be looking at Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.
Since we'll be beta-testing the new coin flip functionality, if/when something goes wrong, I'm fine with holding the round as if everything is normal and straightening out the ballot with tab after the fact. Since flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the Zoom room early with time to spare. If you're in Zoom and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, both because this is a new system and in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.
However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.
If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.
Should you feel compelled to run a full theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.
If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.
Grand cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.
- Policy and LD since 1998
- Parli and PF since 2002
- WSDC and WUDC since 2009
- Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
- Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-present
- Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
- James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
- SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:
- If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
- Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
- Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
- If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
- Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.
- I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
- I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
- Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
- If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
- Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
- If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
- Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.
- I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
- If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
- Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.
- Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
- If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
- I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
- With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
- Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
- The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
- I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
- In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
- I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
- I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their OS and their time allocation in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's SM any favors.
- Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
- Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
- Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
- CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.
- SM cannot go line-by-line. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.
- GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
- FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
- Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
- My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
- "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
- Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
- Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
- I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
- I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
- If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
- Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
- Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
- How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.
I am a lay parent judge with experience judging a couple of tournaments.
1. Speak at a conversational speed.
2. I give more importance to valid and well researched points.
4. Avoid repetition and use of technical terms.
5. Please do not take too much time to pull up called evidence. Be organized.
6. I consider cross to give speaker points so be confident but not too aggressive.
Hello, Greetings !!!
I am a parent judge and have some experience judging public forum debate format. I am aware of incredible time & effort debaters put in for preparation and how much they value and look for judge's feedback. I would like to be fair in judging and would suggest following,
1. Speak Clear,loud, confident and concise.
2. Speed - Like medium so that i can flow. No spreading.
3. Please do not bring up new arguments in Summary and Final Focus. Extend your arguments and collapse in Summary and FF.
4. Do not personally attack or use offensive language towards your opponent. I expect this to be a sportive and enjoyable experience.
5. Stick to the time limits.
6. I expect clear evidence and warranting when supporting arguments.
7. Voters - If you want me to vote for you, please make it clear what arguments you are winning on.
Good Luck debating !!!
I'm a current law student but am a former high school debate competitor and collegiate speech competitor. I have the greatest amount of coaching and judging in experience in LD but have judged PF for the last five years.
I keep a detailed flow of the round and ask that warrants be extended on key arguments you extend throughout the debate.
Please be respectful in crossfire/cx.
I find rounds work best when debaters also time themselves and cross time their opponents.
In order to reduce the likelihood of any technical issues, I ask that you take necessary precautions (e.g. quitting programs not needed on your computer, testing your WiFi connection, etc.).
Please feel free to ask if you have any specific questions before the round starts so we begin on time. Thank you, and good luck!
tldr: imagine i'm a tech judge, but from the year 2017. 75% of my recent decisions have been made for the team who actually extended all of their links & a terminal impact from case. 20% have been who weighed better. do with that what you will.
in-round safety stuff:
read content warnings if your case has potentially triggering material (general guideline: suicide, domestic violence, sexual violence, anything structural violencey, mental health, terrorism, graphic descriptions of violence & suffering)
my email & facebook are at the bottom of this paradigm; please email me before the round if you need anything! this includes but is not limited to:
- accessibility concerns (I am happy to make any changes or in round accommodations you need so you can participate in the round)
- pronoun concerns (I am happy to ask all debaters in the round to use "they/them" pronouns to refer to everyone or engage in any other solution you feel is appropriate)
- anything else you need! I'm not only here to judge, I also want to support you outside of round in any way you need!
- if somebody's pronouns are on tab you're expected to use the correct ones. if you misgender somebody i'll dock speaks and autoL if it's continuous
turns? frontline them the speech after they're read
extensions? should be a complete re-explination of the argument with uniqueness, all of the links necessary & a terminal impact
calling evidence? if there's a terminal un-warranted response that could decide the round, i'll call it. if a team tells me to call for evidence in final focus, i'll call it unless i know the evidence already.
speed? ok with it up to around 250 wpm, after that you should probably send me a speech doc and i might ask for some extra time to flow it. if you're going super fast in the first half, make your extensions extra clear in summary/ff so i understand the argument.
crossfire? don't pay attention to it; if something important happens tell me in a speech. if i do pay attention, though, i get particularly annoyed when people interrupt others on zoom.
defense in first summary? don't need it unless it was frontlined in second rebuttal
collapsing? do it please
weighing? do it please. just make good comparisons between your arguments & your opponents' arguments and tell me why yours are better & more important please
theory? no. go do policy or LD your speeches are so short & i won't vote for it.
grand cross? we're not skipping it
big impacts (100 million +)? your extensions in summary & final focus must spend at least 10 seconds per 100m people. this means if you read the IMF 900 million card your case extension should be 90+ seconds of your final focus
please feel free to ask questions before/after the round (email is email@example.com)
I am a parent judge representing Regis High School in New York City. I have been judging debate for over three years at some of the larger regional tournaments, states, and local tournaments, judging principally Varsity PF, rounded out with a BQ qualifier and BQ nationals.
I work in finance. I'm familiar with basic debate jargon (turn, extend, etc.) but I'm certainly not a very 'debatey' judge. Off time roadmaps are welcome. Please be sure everything you say is understandable. Speed is okay but you must be clear. If I can't follow you it will be harder for me to understand connections between your contentions, warrants, and impacts or challenges to your opponent's arguments.
When time runs out, please finish your thought and stop speaking.
I will vote off the flow.
I had a rly long paradigm last year and got rid of it but if you remember from last year its still probably all applicable. I graduated 2020 from hawken. debated four years, 2 on nat circuit and did fairly well. I can flow fast-ish and am generally tech, but like, do good tech debate. Just reading 70 one card turns is lame. Id prefer if people read arguments in rebuttal and case with multiple warrants and multiple cards rather than more blippy one card responses and turns. I dont love theory because I dont understand it super well. Please weigh, please read warranted arguments, please do actual analysis, please use your brain instead of just mindlessly reading cards. Also I really like when people talk about the implications of certain responses on other arguments in the round because I think that type of analysis is difficult and shows the difference between people who just read their teams prep and people who actually understand debate rounds. ie if you say something smart and Im like 'wow i havent heard that in literally every other round ive judged' ill be happy.
Also email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org (I took a gap year)
Let's start by saying this - I'm a wild card judge at times. There is no one thing that wins the round for me, and there's no one thing that loses it. I evaluate each debate on its own merit and set of circumstances. If you must know something that remotely looks like a paradigm/philosophy, though, here goes...
Although I am a coach, I still believe that public forum is an event intended for the layman. Throwing around fancy phraseology that shows me you've been to prestigious debate camps and have a diverse set of experiences on the national circuit doesn't impress me as much as you might like - it all boils down to effective argumentation and refutation. Framework/weighing mechanisms are extremely helpful. Otherwise, you've got a trigger-happy judge like me trying to determine standards upon which to evaluate the round, and you know as well as I do that people can be foolish doodyheads. Lead the horse to water, and it will drink on its own. Don't lead the horse to water, and it may gallop around everything but the water.
I'm getting off track.
I can comprehend just fine in terms of speed, but don't spread because you think introducing eighteen different contentions will win you the round. It won't. "They dropped my really obscure point about the squirrel population and the environment - you're gonna flow that to us." No, I'm not! Just because an opponent doesn't address subpoint 3c of contention 2a doesn't mean they lose the round - that's tactics and strategy, and while it can assist you, it will very rarely be my RFD.
I do flow, but it will look like a deranged person's flow - I got thrown into debate by my own high school coach at the last second without any prep, so I made it up as I went along ("fake it 'til you make it," after all). Hopefully you won't notice it on Zoom.
Oh, and this whole notion of pre-flow? Yeah, that's definitely a thing - it's called prep time. If I, as the judge, am ready to go? You are ready to go as well. Do not ask me to wait on you - that won't start you off on the right foot.
Civil crossfires, please. This is where my pen drops the most; I interpret speaking over one another as rude and inconsiderate. I don't anticipate that as much with a virtual crossfire (#thanksalotcorona), but I thought I would mention it.
I can't do the pen twirly thing. I've tried, and I just don't have the coordination.
Hope that provides you some level of understanding of the claptrap that is my mind.
Parent judge with experience, I do flow the entire round.
If possible, please make it easy for me, collapse or go for a well explained turn, I am not a a pro and wont necessarily understand all the jargon and nuance.
1. yes - signpost; off-time roadmaps, extending from SUM to FF;
2. warrants > blips;
3. defense isn’t sticky in 99% of rounds
4. no - spreading, anything new in 2nd SUM or FF; Kritik; Theory;
Please make your framework clear and, when necessary, address why your framework should prevail.
When you clash with your opponents, I will judge your case based on how you weigh your arguments' significance relative to your opponents' arguments.
Please do not spread. If you do, I may miss an argument or response.
Please speak clearly and at a normal pace. The main points I consider when judging debate are:
1) The quality of the facts and the details stated
2) Speech presentation and voice modulation
3) A persuasive argument
4) Logic-based arguments and reliable evidence
5) Very important: Treat your opponents with respect
- If you want me to understand your arguments, talk at normal talking speed
- I like the weighing debate (do your own weighing and respond to your opponent's weighing)
- The more organized (signpost, roadmap) your speech is, the better I will understand it.
- I typically have topic knowledge, so feel free to use more complicated arguments but make sure to explain your argument out.
- I usually go tech over truth, but if you connect an unrelated argument to world extinction, I may have a hard time buying your argument unless you explain it properly.
- if you fake evidence and the other team calls you out, I will most likely drop you.
Feel free to ask me any questions about my judging preference before round:)
email chain email@example.com
I've been competing and/or coaching in various speech and debate events since 2011. My primary experience is with policy (national circuit/toc, tfa, and regional/local traditional circuits) and parli (npda/npte). I judge almost every weekend, and I spend a lot of time in debate since it is essentially my full-time job, so I am relatively up-to-date on debate trends and norms, as well as discussions of the criminal justice topic. I typically judge ~50+ rounds a year.
I don’t have any predispositions regrading the content, structure, or style of your arguments. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm absent a team winning an argument for me to evaluate it another way. Clear impact weighing in the rebuttals and evidence/warrant comparison are typically what I notice in teams I enjoy judging.
I attempt to be a ’technical’ judge in every round I watch. I try to keep a detailed flow, and use my flow to evaluate the round that happened. If the flow doesn’t decide a clear winner, I will then look to the quality of evidence/warrants provided. I tend to find I’m less interested in where an argument in presented than others. While clear line-by-line is always appreciated, some of my favorite debaters to watch were overview-heavy debaters who made and answered arguments in the debate while telling a persuasive story of the debate. I would rather you sound organized and clear than following a template throughout each flow.
I will most likely not vote on ‘independent voting issues’ unless it’s an egregious instance. This is separate from ethics concerns, like cheating, card clipping, etc. I am not persuaded by claims that I should evaluate the entirety of the debate based upon a single argument on my flow. Particular rhetorical abuses, such as racist, sexist, transphobic remarks are a different story, and I will hold those to much higher scrutiny than a claim that I should decide a whole debate because the 2ac read a severance perm.
Instead of framing debates through ‘body counts’, I am much more persuaded by framing as ‘who saves the most lives’, or who has the best advocacy for change. Sometimes debaters talk about claims of very real violence and problems for various communities with little regard to the real world implications of their political advocacies.
I tend to prefer specific plan texts over vague plan texts. I also like specific internal link claims and impact scenarios. Specific instances of war are more persuasive to me than ‘goat power war’ claims.
counterplans, disads, & case turns
I would prefer you read at least once piece of solvency evidence per plank in the 1nc. Obviously that’s not a hard rule, but I will hold CPs that read multiple planks with no evidence in the 1nc to much higher scrutiny than a sufficiently developed 1nc shell.
I tend to lean neg on most CP theories. Obviously, the debate is to be had, but I am generally more persuaded that the negative should get access to most CPs and conditional advocacies. Specific claims about instances in-round to generate offense in these debates is much more persuasive than generic standard debates. I am more willing to vote on reject the argument than reject the team.
I find I am more willing to judge-kick in the 2nr than most judges, but think this is still a debate that needs to be had. The 2nr must have a persuasive reason for me to judge kick, and the 2ar can still win that I ought not judge kick.
Uniqueness guides the direction of the link. I like robust development of each level of the debate for disads and case turns, while telling a clear story about the thesis of the disad. I decide the probability of your impact based on the link and internal link level of the debate, and find that often times 2nrs are lacking on this level of the disad flow.
I think the impact turn is a lost art and have a special place in my heart for them. The same is to be said for developed case turn debates.
To me, the best kritiks are the ones that clearly identify a theory of power or possesses some sort of a structural analysis. I am most persuaded by specific historical examples and a clear alternative that frames what my ballot does.
The link level of the debate tends to be the most important in my making my decision at the end of the round. I like developed link blocks, and think that the aff often times doesn’t adequately handle the link section of the debate.
In reformism v revolution debates, I prefer explanations that pinpoint why the conditions of the status quo are the way they are, and can best explain casualty for violence. This is where historical examples become especially important, and where warrant comparison becomes paramount.
I think permutations in the 2ar that attempt to prove the alt is not functionally competitive are not nearly as persuasive as arguments in the 2ar that the aff is in the direction of the alt. A heg aff probably cannot go for a perm against anti-blackness, but an aff that is a step towards the same telos of the alt can.
Affs will usually win that they can weigh their aff, but I am typically not persuaded by framework arguments that attempt to tell me not to evaluate the k. I think the same is also true for the negative. Instead, I think the framework portion of the debate should tell me what my ballot does and how I should frame my decision given the context of the round.
'clash of civilization' debates
I've been seeing a lot of these debates recently, so I figured it was worth adding a section with a bit more tailored to these debates.
In these debates, warrant comparison is paramount. Rebuttals that are just extending state good/bad or reformism good/bad arguments without doing any interaction with the flow is a common mistake I see in these debates. Ideally, your arguments for this level of debate also have terminalized and developed impacts as well. The best debaters in these debates typically are those who use their evidence/examples to implicate the specific warrants the other team is extending.
Links should be explained as disadvantages to the permutation with impacts developed and extended for them. I need the 2nr to be doing more work on the permutation than just extending the link level; this isn't to say you cannot or should not extend them as disads to the perm (I think you probably should), but simply saying the phrase isn't enough to prove mutual exclusivity. I appreciate a really well developed and implicated link wall.
I would much rather not have my ballot decided by the framework level debate. Engaging the substance is very much so appreciated in these debates. Obviously this doesn't influence any debates I watch, but I tend to believe that the aff should get access to their 1ac and the neg gets to weigh their impacts against it; fiat is illusory isn't reason enough for me to moot the 1ac, and just because it's a K doesn't mean your 1ac was necessarily mooted. but again, grain of salt, do you.
A lot of these rounds are decided on which team wins their theory of power or governance, and rebuttalists that are using historical and contextual examples are typically those who win these debates. The more specific the examples throughout the debate, the better spot you will probably be in to get my ballot.
Instead of telling me what your alt does, tell me how I can do your alt. I love references to other movements, specific actions I can take, and what the telos or the vision of your alternative is; I do not like you telling me in the abstract what the alterative means. Don't try to explain the words of the alt to me, tell me what the alt means with specific warrants for how the alt can resolve the links and/or the aff.
The 2ar needs to be finding ways to extend and terminalize offense that exists outside solving the aff. If your offense on the K only relies on your ability to solve your aff in the 2ar, it tends to not bode well for the aff. Reformism/state good offense that isn't just 'we solve the aff, the aff is a good idea', or terminalized impact turns or disadvantages to the alternatives can be really useful in close 'clash' debates.
If the 2ar is going for a permutation, I must know what the world of the permutation looks like with some explanation of the solvency mechanism for the perm and why the alt is not mutually exclusive.
Competing interpretations just tells me to evaluate offense vs defense, which is what I am most likely going to do. I think reasonability tells me that even if they win the their impact claims (the standards), they haven’t won the link debate (the interp debate) because we meet/are close enough to the interp. Because I view T debates this way, I like clear and developed standard debates that clear isolate impact claims.
Case lists, TVAs, examples of affs that would violate, etc. are all useful because they help me situate your interp within the topic. These are all terminal defense, so you won’t necessarily win a debate with them alone, but they are persuasive.
Interp comparison is really useful as well. Debating the quality of interps is a lost art and can generate offense in the standard level as well.
I don’t think that the aff has to win a specific counter interp in K aff v FW debates, but rather a counter model for debate. I like these debates that break down the skills gandered from each model of debate, and use them to generate offense. Arguments like fairness claims, or claims that framework is inherently violent aren’t persuasive to me. Standards about portable skills, research, advocacy, etc. that tell me the tangible benefits of your model serve best on either side because I think helps frame what sort of method my ballot is endorsing.
(Last Updated 6/10/21)
General (read in addition to specific event):
I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.
I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.
I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.
I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.
I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.
I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.
I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.
I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.
You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.
I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.
I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.
I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.
I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.
I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.
Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.
Hi. My name is Daniel Gutkin, I'm currently a freshman at the University of Michigan and I debated at NSU for 4 years, I'd like to think I was pretty decent at debate.
I'm your basic flow judge. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline turns and preferably terminal defense, I also prefer collapsing and weighing in 2nd rebuttal as well but that's not necessary. Weigh to make my decision simple.
Speed is fine as long as you are being clear, and send speech docs if asked by the other team.
For progressive arguments: I will evaluate theory. Read a K at your discretion- be explicit and dumb it down if you do.
I strictly follow the beliefs of NSU coach Sharan Sawlani. I agree with everything he said in his paradigm if you want to look it up on tabroom
If you have any specific questions just ask me in the room. Just please have fun, that's what this is all about.
Fun ways to get bonus speaker points
+2 speaker points if you show up when you are supposed to. Timeliness is a big thing for me.
+1 speaker point for making a joke about Ohio State being bad
I am a mathematician at The College of New Jersey who participated in Parliamentary Debate in college. Highlights included serving on the organizing committee for the World Universities Debate Championship when held in Princeton, NJ, and arguing in a debate that the New York Times should have a daily sports section (it didn't then, but does now!).
Fred Astaire did not have a great singing voice, but he was a good singer as he clearly enunciated the wonderful lyrics of Irving Berlin and Cole Porter. Similarly, arguments are most effective when they are clearly articulated and can be understood. Also, it is the quality of the argument, and not just having abundance of facts, that is most convincing.
I am mostly a traditional Flow Judge and will minimize my intervention in the round. Please give me a clear way to vote for you and remember that a persuasive argument succeeds on both the intellectual and emotional levels. Do not exceed your time limits and in the crossfire, do not talk over the other debaters and allow the other side enough time to ask their questions.
Case - Don't have any clear contradictions. I will vote off glaring flaws, though small flaws need to be pointed out by the other team. For example, don't have C1 be promoting X and C2 be getting rid of X. Put your strongest foot first. I don't approve of time sink arguments.
Cross - Please don't interrupt. Both teams need to share the time. Speaks will be deducted.
Rebuttal - Don't overuse jargon like "turns." Explain the logic. I care more about a clear and logical explanation of your warranting than 10 different responses on each contention.
Summary/Final Focus - Must extend in at least one of these speeches.
This is my 37th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception.
PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:
Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save the spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the AC can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and choking and incoherent choking. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.
Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.
Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins re-election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.
Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.
Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.
Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is usually unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad.
Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument.
I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s
I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29s and 29.7s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!
i evaluate like a lay judge. keep it slow, implicate your responses, clearly weigh. progressive args are fine if you can explain them thoroughly without jargon or speed. also, speech docs help me make a better decision; you can ask me for my email before round if you would like to oblige. please govern yourselves. thanks and have fun.
I am new to NSDA however, I am not new to judging. If you are unable to spread properly do not do it. Thank you. Other than that its free range. Thank you and have a great time!
Update: Haven’t judged a round in a year. I’m rusty and probably can’t follow you if you go too fast. Warrant please
Now that we got that out of the way:
I debated PF for College Prep for 4 years.
My general views:
1) Second rebuttal must respond to turns or they will be considered dropped.
2) First Summary does not have to extend defense if Second Rebuttal did not frontline the defense.
3) This is a team event so everything else (besides rule 2) must be in summary to be extended in FF.
4) Weighing can be new in first FF but I am must more inclined to vote for a team that has set up weighing earlier in the round.
5) Second FF CAN NOT BRING UP ANYTHING NEW. This includes new cross applications of evidence or meta-weighing. This was honestly one of the things that I hated most in debate. If I see an obvious use of this I will drop your speaks and ignore the argument. Don't waste your limited time and precious speaks :).
I have judged plenty of camp rounds and practice rounds in my high school career but this is my first time judging at a tournament so I will make mistakes.
Other important things to know about me:
I was not comfortable running theory in high school but I had plenty of it ran against me. I will do my best to evaluate it but understand that it will be easier to acquire my ballot on "substance debate" because of my comfortability with it.
I am very anti-spreading. If you have to send a speech doc then you are doing PF wrong. I enjoy fast debate but spreading is different. I will give high speaks to the team that speaks clearly so for most people this means that slowing down is the best way to get high speaks. I will occasionally also give high speaks if your round strategy was very impressive but this is rare as I do believe that speaker points should be for your ability to speak.
Warrants are key to my ballot. Debate isn't a computer game where you click on the right pieces of evidence and win. You have to convince me. Explain to me why it makes sense to affirm or negate.
Have fun, don't be mean, but also make cross interesting.
If you have any questions feel free to ask.
Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).
First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution.
When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise.
Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits.
I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging.
CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them.
Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate.
I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia.
I'm Kyle, he/him pronouns.
-- Morse High School '14, Yale University '18
-- 2x LD State Champion in Maine
-- 3 yrs of Parli (APDA) at Yale, was 2nd NOTY, 3rd TOTY, Nationals Semifinalist, NorthAms Champion
-- Coached LD, PF, Parli 2014- 2020 at St. Luke’s School, The Spence School, Sidwell Friends
-- Currently volunteer w/ Palo Alto HS Debate Team.
Paradigm Summary (Important to Read!)
I'm approaching a decade out of high school competition, so you should probably treat me as a 'flay' judge. My preferences are pretty simple: be clear, be strategic, be comparative. I don't particularly care what you run or how you run it, as long as you warrant, weigh, and do comparative analysis. Do whatever you're best at doing. Make reasonable arguments and explain why they're better than your opponent's in your rebuttal/summary. Tell me how to write my ballot and have a story for why you win w/ voting issues.
I tend to vote holistically, meaning I'm not going to auto-vote for "they dropped subpoint C of Contention 2!" or "nuclear war/extinction outweighs on magnitude!" or "saving lives comes before everything else!" This stuff strikes me as lazy and cliché. Please note: I come from a very traditional debate background, so over-explain progressive argumentation, minimize circuit jargon, and don't fast spread.
I welcome you to debate outside of the typical 'utilitarian offense/measurable impacts' approach when you're in front of me -- meaning, I'm more receptive to rights-based/more abstract philosophical argumentation than the typical judge. In LD (which I usually judge), I think good debate rounds should be at least 50% focused on framework/value criterion/standard -- I will rarely award speaks above ~28.5 without high-quality, well-developed framework level argumentation.
Detailed Thoughts (Fun to Read? Idk)
I flow rounds thoroughly and evaluate through a tech-first lens, but I have a pretty high threshold for warranting -- meaning I won't just vote for an unwarranted impact/blippy link chain simply because you said it.
Reading a card is NOT the same as warranting an argument. I look for you to give specific, contextualized reasons for why your argument is true and I treat this as a prerequisite to you being able to access impacts of the argument -- meaning that I don't care if you said the biggest impact in the entire round, unless you first convinced me the underlying argument is probably correct/true. (Warrants, baby!)
My most common frustration/challenge in judging is that rounds often lack clash/comparative analysis. I like when debaters explain how their arguments interact with their opponents' and use things like 'comparative worlds' frames of reference to illustrate clash.
I try my best to be non-ideological as a judge, meaning if you run something that I don't personally/politically agree with, I'll still do my best to evaluate it fairly. I'll vote for pretty much anything as long as it isn't egregiously repugnant/morally abhorrent (e.g. I'd never vote for a Holocaust-denial argument, but I've also never seen anything this horrific in a round...so please don't be the first!).
I have on a couple of occasions dropped a debater/team purely based on their conduct in-round, and I won't hesitate to do so again if someone does something that is blatantly mean, purposefully offensive, or otherwise a form of highly anti-social and cruel behavior.
IMO, different debate formats exist to maximize accessibility and educational potential of the activity. As such, I tend to be more 'traditionalist' about what each format should look like, and I don't like the trend of all formats of debate collapsing toward Policy.
I love quick-wittedness in rhetoric, clever turns of phrase, 'gotcha!' moments, etc. -- especially in cross. I won't vote for you strictly because you "sounded better," but your projected confidence & charisma absolutely influences how I perceive you and evaluate the round.
In LD, I prefer a good framework debate on topical substance, with lots of philosophy. Not a big fan of spreading and circuit-jargon-laden, game-like rounds...you can infer how I feel about stuff like tricks. Will vote for pretty much any philosophy (it's all about what you do with it in the debate), but I don't like most postmodernism/relativism/skep/moral skep stuff (if you tell me everything is subjective/relative during a debate, a competitive activity with winners & losers, I will look for your opponent to point out the dazzling irony of this, and they'll win).
In PF, I'd prefer an accessible discourse focused on real-world issues through a pragmatic/utilitarian perspective, with analysis of evidence, source quality, etc. and lots of weighing of impacts. Quality > quantity of arguments. Please don't run nuclear war/extinction stuff in front of me; I never vote for it because the links are bad. Give me some reasonable, well-linked voters (even if they're lower in magnitude/scope/whatever, if they're actually plausible...I'll probably vote for them).
NOTE: My wifi connection is pretty bad. I'll try to keep my camera on, but if I have to, I may turn it off temporarily to save bandwidth. That means that you probably shouldn't go fast and if I do cut out, I may ask you to repeat what you said at certain parts of your speech. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Written by William Hong.
Hello, my dad is a lay parent judge with very little topic knowledge (so don't assume he knows what Kaliningrad is or what the Georgian invasion was). Please speak clearly and walk him through your link so that he understands your arguments. If he can't understand your arguments, he probably won't vote for you. He doesn't know how to flow so make sure FF really is able to simplify the round for him clearly. Avoid any jargon like delink, turn, uniqueness, prereq, outweigh on scope/timeframe/probability, etc. but he's able to understand the actual content of your responses if you build on them. Be sure to time and conduct the flip yourselves. He probably will inform the debaters of which side he votes on after the round most likely. Have fun and good luck!
This will be my second year judging as the parent of a high school debater.
I don't mind when debaters speak quickly, but please speak clearly and don't talk over one another.
I am a lay judge and I have a daughter who is in varsity right now.
How I judge:
- You must convince me based on fact in order to make me vote for you. I need to hear evidence, statistics, numbers, etc.
- If your opponent's do not question you, I will not question you. It is your opponents' job to point out your errors. (Unless you are trying to say something that is just obviously not true).
- Make sure you sound and look confident, presentation makes a difference.
- DO NOT BE RUDE to your opponents that is one of my biggest pet peeves during a round
Things to keep in mind:
- I am a parent
- Don't use too much debate terminology (I won't understand what you are doing)
- I don't like theory (please DO NOT read theory, stay on topic)
- Don't read too fast, if I can't understand you, I won't vote for you
- I don't give 30s very often
- I usually don't go under 26
I debated for four years at Lexington High School, and am currently not debating in college. I have little to no topic knowledge.
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Disclosure is extremely important.
- Debate whatever style you are comfortable with. I'm experienced with speed but do what you are comfortable with. Seriously. I just want a good debate.
I'm a firm believer in the strategic aspect of debate. My favorite part of judging a debate is watching what kinds of unique strategies you can have come up with, the research you have done to support it, and how you execute it. I'm pretty open-minded and enjoy pretty much any type of debate, so run whatever you want. I would much rather you run what you're comfortable with, rather than trying to over-adapt to me.
I will not accept any discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). I generally believe that you are good human beings and will be respectful to each other, so don't prove me wrong.
Tech over truth. How well something is debated determines how much truth I assign to it. While the truth level can lower or higher the threshold of tech required to persuade me, I will judge by the flow. A dropped argument is a true argument. That means it must have a claim, warrant, and impact.
Draw comparisons. Explain why your impacts are important outweigh those of your opponent. This also goes for every part of an argument, like uniqueness, the link, etc. Compare evidence and warrants. Draw a distinction between the alt and the perm. Explain how each argument implicates your opponent's arguments and the rest of the debate. The best rebuttals will break down the core issues of the debate and write my ballot for me. Debates that lack comparison make it difficult for me to write a decision, which will probably make one side unhappy every time.
Evidence quality. Evidence is incredibly important, but it can also be trumped by sound, logical arguments. I value good spin of your evidence. That being said, I strongly dislike when people highlight words out of context or jumble together random words to form an argument. So many teams get away with reading bad evidence, but if you don't mention it, it will continue.
I default to competing interpretations over reasonability, but this is totally up for debate. Reasonability can definitely be persuasive in the right circumstances. Lots of impact calc needs to be done on both sides, and the internal links to your offense should be clearly explained.
Have good turns case analysis at each level of the disad (link, internal link, impact). Make sure to have good, recent evidence because these debates often come down to evidence quality. I don't have any strong opposition to the politics disad – the internal links may be silly, but it's probably a necessity on this topic and I will evaluate it like a normal disad.
While it is very helpful to have them, CPs do not need carded solvency advocates, especially if they are based on some of the aff's internal links. All CPs need to have a clear net benefit and must be competitive. I would like an explanation of the perm and how it shields the link to the net benefit, and this explanation should be happening early on in the debate. PICs are awesome, especially ones that are specific to the aff.
I enjoy a good K debate, as long as there is good analysis and explanation. I will typically allow the aff to weigh their impacts. That being said, what does it really mean to weigh a fiated extinction impact against your epistemology? I believe affs should have a stronger framework push than just "weigh the aff" because most neg framework arguments will implicate this very process of impact calculus. Specificity to the aff is extremely important, but not necessary. However, generic link arguments without sufficient analysis will make me much more receptive to the perm. Don't read super long overviews - put the explanation of the K's thesis there, maybe an impact explanation, but the rest can go on the line-by-line.
I think fairness is an impact, and probably the most convincing one. However, you still need to explain to me why that matters. Impacts that rely on some spillover to institutions (i.e. Lundberg 10) are unconvincing to me. If you are going for T, you should answer relevant arguments on the case page. I think TVAs are strategic and don't have to be perfect.
The aff should have a mix of offense and defense to defeat framework. Most of the time, the impact turn approach is a lot more convincing than trying to win a counter-interpretation, but this depends on the aff. Leverage your aff against framework – impact turn the aff's model of debate or read disads to it based on the thesis of the aff. Defensive arguments can also mitigate a lot of the risk of the neg accessing their impacts.
If you're going for theory, in-round abuse is extremely important. I think the only the thing that can rise to the level of a voting issue is conditionality. 3 condo is fine with me; 4+ is pushing it. Counterplan theory objections are much less convincing if you have a good solvency advocate. I will lean neg on agent cps and 50 state fiat because of the lack of great neg ground on this topic. I lean aff on consult cps, word pics, and certain process cps. Unless there is a 2NR argument for it, I will not kick the CP for you.
(4 years of PF) UVA '24
Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.
I will evaluate progressive arguments.
If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.
I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.
Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.
Hi! I'm Hanrui, a first-year out from Westview High School in Oregon. I debated three years of PF.
A couple general things for PF debaters:
- Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary, nothing's sticky
- I don't flow cross, if there are important points brought up make sure they're in a speech
- Progressive args are fine, but spend more time explaining because I might struggle with them due to inexperience
- Moderate speed is fine, I'll let you know if you're going too fast
- Please warrant and clash; actually interact with your opponent's arguments
- Weighing is good, please do it
- 5 minutes to exchange evidence throughout the round, after that it's on your prep time
Disclaimer: I am a bit rusty in PF because I haven't done it in sooo long so please take it easy on me if I am not proficient in debate terminology :)
Third-year medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Seasonally coaching for BC Academy in Canada. Debated PF since Gr. 9. I've judged a fair share of tournaments but during my years on the circuit most tournaments ran paper ballots so my history isn't reflected properly on tab.
WHO AM I?
- I disclose and give oral feedback.
- I appreciate trigger warnings on sensitive arguments.
- I'm a flow judge so help write it. I've seen a lot of debaters make the mistake of hoping their judge will connect the dots for you but that requires me to input my own thought process and judgment into my decision-making. I would prefer to vote based on your analysis and interpretation of the round. However, if the round is messy and there's no offence extended into final focus, I will force myself to look back at the refutations and constructive.
- I will be your typical tabula rasa judge and will buy any argument that is clearly warranted with logical links, stats, and impacts; having stats is important but if it isn't warranted clearly or weakly linked, it won't hold significant weight to my decision. BIGGEST TURN OFF ARE CARD DUMPS THAT HAVE LITTLE TO NO WARRANTS.
- Roadmap starting from second rebuttal. It makes it extremely easy for me to see how well you warrant your responses.
- Make clear and concise argumentation. I weigh content over style. You can dictate and enunciate all you want, but if BS just flows out then I will know and your opponents will probably know too.
SPEAKER POINTS (skip unless you REALLY want a speaker award because this part isn't as important)
I will start at 27 and dock points off or add points on based on how you presented your speech based on the following factors:
1. Offensive language will warrant me to give you low speaks (i.e. sexism, racism, ableism, etc.)
2. STYLE: This is the only place where I can DOCK points to your speaks. I will dock you off if you spread because clarity will trump speed. I would rather get all your content down even if it's little rather than you talking exponentially fast to cover everything, only for half of it to be on my flow.
3. CONTENT: Based on how well your analysis and warranting is, I will add on additional points. I won't dock on content because I think that forces me to evaluate whether a response was sufficient or not, which means I have to input my thoughts into the round and I don't want to intervene. I'll dock you if your constructive is a card dump though.
4. MANNERS: Honestly this has never been a problem for me but if you're sexist, racist, ableist, etc. I will drop your speaks unimaginably low.
5. TIME: If you go really overtime, it'll impact your score but I also wouldn't count content that is overtime.
WHAT THIS ROUND SHOULD LOOK LIKE
- Please do not read theory or kritiks; I have never learned them and won't make a good decision nor evaluate it properly. But kudos to you if you know how to run them.
- Tech > truth (Doesn't invite you to read theories. I accept any well warranted and linked argument but if it's out of the world obscure then nah fam)
- I don't flow crossfire so any concessions from the opponents should be brought up in your speech, otherwise it won't affect my decision. Needless to say, that does NOT mean you bring up a fake concession. Please maintain the integrity of public forum.
- Second rebuttal should frontline offense; at minimum you should respond to turns
- Offence is conceded if dropped in proceeding speech
- If second rebuttal misses frontlining your defence, extend from first ref to first final.
- Answer turns in second rebuttal or first summary. Otherwise, you're making it unfair for the opponents to engage in it.
- 90% of the time, it won't be a clean win if the summary goes for every voter issue. Focus on collapsing. Just point out that you've dropped because neither side can win on it. You can't just drop offense or turns that your opponents placed on your arguments though.
- Summary and final focus should mirror each other; I will not buy a point that was brought up in final focus but not discussed in summary; I will not extend arguments for you, so tell me what to extend.
- Final focus is not for additional refutation; any new arguments read will be disregarded
HOW DO I VOTE?
- 90% of the time I will vote on pre-reqs, warranted weighing mech, offense, and impact calc. I find as a judge it makes it easier for me to evaluate.
- Directly compare your impacts and warrants with your opponents. Explain why your impact holds more significance and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. Warranted impacts > Evidential impacts.
- Weigh based off LINKS, TURNS, LOGIC, or ANALYSIS. Evidence is important, but THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY REASON WHY YOUR IMPACT HOLDS MORE SIGNIFICANCE. If you've extended your evidence to support your links and analysis, I will look extremely favourable on that. But just extending forbes as your main reason why I should vote isn't sufficient. Evidence should support your analysis.
- Extend key issues/warrants from summary for it to be in final focus!!!! You should focus on painting a narrative, so don't put too much on your plate to flow across everything.
If you have any questions on my paradigm or decisions, email me email@example.com . Also down to talk on Linkedin lol
I prefer debaters who articulate clearly instead of word speeding.
I prefer debaters who reason not only logically but also have factual data to back up the reasoning, instead of only having factual data.
I prefer debaters who use common logic instead of convoluted reasoning.
I prefer debaters who understand not only your own contentions but also your opponents contentions.
I prefer debaters who can come up with good counter arguments to their opponents contentions using pertinent evidence and reasoning instead of going in circle.
I prefer debaters who are respectful to their opponents.
Experience: 12 years in multiple formats, first for Torrey Pines HS, then for Cal Poly SLO. Currently a graduate student in urban planning at USC.
I can't handle top speed, but moderate speed should be okay. If it's too fast, I'll let you know.
I approach debate as an educator - if your arguments are based on extensive familiarity with the topic and context, and if you use that knowledge to engage substantively with your opponents' arguments, I will likely vote for you. I prefer arguments which are grounded in literature (not necessarily academic) to those which are not. I also appreciate specific warranting - appeals to authority are next to useless without an articulated warrant.
My speaker points will reward deep knowledge of the topic - cross-examination is your time to shine.
Be respectful of your judges and fellow competitors. This includes respecting everyone's time: make sure all of your evidence is easily accessible if called, quickly open lines of communication to your partner during prep time, and make sure your technology is in working order prior to the start of the round.
American University 2019 | Apple Valley High School 2016
I debated for Apple Valley High School (MN) where I served as a captain my senior year. I qualified for TOC in LD my junior and senior years with a winning record my senior year.
UPDATE 9/15/2021 Yale Tournament
I have been coaching and teaching Public Forum Debate -- Varsity and JV for 2 years now. However, this is my first time judging at an actual Public Forum Debate Tournament. A lot of my PF paradigm is borrowed from Darren Chang.
My biggest piece of advice is to not adapt your style of debating to me because I have a circuit LD background. I will vote for the team that wins their arguments on the flow so argument quality matters but a little less than being ahead on the flow with a lower quality argument than your opponent (Tech > Truth).
Respect all parties involved, myself included. Carry yourself with class. Strike a balance between technical proficiency and telling a coherent ballot story. I have a great appreciation for any strategy executed efficiently with minimal jargon.
Be clear about extensions vs. mere references to the arguments you want to be evaluated. Absent this, there's too much room for ambiguity. Use SpeechDrop or an email chain. Go slow at first and then speed up if you so choose so I can warm up to your voice. Conversational pace for key texts (interps, key texts, etc.)
--- I do not read speech docs (of analytics) during the speech or after the round. I will only call evidence if it is a point of contestation. If I am on the email chain, that is fine but I will likely only use it correct errors I make on my part, not issues with your delivery. I will say clear if necessary. That being said, I have no problem with speed but note that it is definitely not necessary.
--- Arguments in the Final Focus should be in the summary. Intuitive implications/extrapolations aren't new. No sticky defense. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; otherwise, it's conceded.
--- To kick a contention, you need to concede a specific piece(s) of defense. Or the other team could still access their turns since not all defense gets rid of all offense.
--- Evidence needs clear citations, don't steal prep, don't misrepresent evidence. I am one-part educator, another part adjudicator - this means you should stray away from arguments that suggest that things like racism, sexism, domestic violence are good.
--- I will evaluate all styles of arguments. Just make sure the implications are clear - should I drop the author team? should I drop their argument? This is referring to Kritiks, theory, performance, etc.
Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.
UPDATE 12/19/2020 -- It would not hurt to give this a skim: https://www.debatedrills.com/en/blog/observations-judging/
This is all towards the aim of being a more proficient judge:
- Refrain from making faces at me- if you don’t like something your opponent said that’s fine but I’m not going to acknowledge and/or validate any of your facial expressions during the debate. I am intentionally neutral with my facial expressions. If you’re able to move me, kudos to you but that just means I’m entertained. But, that is not an indicator that you're winning and/or going to win the debate necessarily.
- Collapse the debate
- 1AR extensions need the complete implication that will be utilized in the round i.e. if you frame something as a take-out to [X] negative argument, you cannot later claim it as offense if that was not stated as such before.
- A lot of clash doesn’t necessarily make a debate better/easier to decide, I much rather see the right clash on the relevant layers of the debate. When you’re crafting your last rebuttal, you should have an idea in your head which exact argument or set of arguments you want me to vote on. It only takes one argument to win a debate if done right.
- Clarity and transition speed are so-so important. I can only think of one time where a debater was outright too fast for me to flow. My issue is when debaters switch flows without pausing, blaze through interp texts, advocacy text, overviews of the round, etc. Part of clarity is also being sufficiently loud. I tend to say louder far more than I ever say clear. I may say louder early in the round even if I can hear so your voice picks up better on the recording
- Your roadmap should be fairly concise- I really only want to know exactly where you’re going to be starting. Signposting should take care of the rest. An overly long roadmap also gives a lot away to your opponent in terms of issue selection.
- Big Picture analysis is necessary in very technical debates. It is not a good strategy for the neg to go for a “let’s see what sticks” approach in the 2NR. Similarly, I don’t think the 2AR needs to extend every piece of substance if the case is conceded by the 2NR, winning the framing of the aff is sufficient assuming that it has been demonstrated to be the most relevant layer of the debate.
- Tricks are fine but just know that they’re not if you end up tricking me. I’m noticing that a lot of these arguments are getting abbreviated. Make sure your extension tells me the full argument b/c otherwise, I don’t know what something like “evaluate the theory debate after the 1N” means. I wish I was joking but I've seen this argument used in 3 different ways.
TL;DR -- Pursue whatever strategy you believe will produce your desired outcome whether that be winning, top speaker, losing for cause, etc.
Priorities: Clarity and strategic vision in that order
Respect all parties involved, myself included. Carry yourself with class. Strike a balance between technical proficiency and telling a coherent ballot story. I have a great appreciation for any strategy executed efficiently with minimal jargon.
Be clear about extensions vs. mere references to the arguments you want to be evaluated. Absent this, there's too much room for ambiguity. Use SpeechDrop or email chain. Go slow to fast so I can warm up to your voice. Conversational pace for key texts (interps, plan text, etc.)
My primary background is in Topicality, theory, policy style arguments, Kritiks, and LD style frameworks (moral and political philosophy).
Speaker points are indexed to the tournament so a 30 means you should win the tournament.
Things I'm least well-versed in:
Continental philosophy, high theory, performance, and micropolitics. Nonetheless, I'm more than open to hearing these arguments. Hopefully, I can learn a thing or two from you.
I see my role as a judge as part-adjudicator, part-hired contractor. This means how you carry yourself in the round matters. I'm looking not for formal professionalism, just decency, and civility. I also think perceptual dominance is a good thing.
Adjudication: For the purpose of time, my RFDs will be brief. I will provide a decision and reference to the specific argument(s) used to arrive at my decision. Any further explanations and questions will have to be resolved outside of the round or via email- firstname.lastname@example.org
Document sharing- Please use speechdrop. This shouldn't be a replacement for clarity. Also, please no time theft. If it becomes an issue, I will use my discretion.
Clarity/speed- This should enhance your strategy and speech, not detract from it. Speaker points will be a holistic reflection of your speaking ability and strategy. I'll never stop flowing you but I will say "clear" as many times as necessary. If I'm interjecting a lot, I'm probably not getting much down anyway.
Speaker points: Being awarded a 30 mean I think your performance in THIS round would win you THIS tournament. That means a 30 at TOC looks different than a 30 at Alta. Also, I'm not going to maintain any particular average. I find it to be arbitrary. I will be as specific as the tournament scale allows.
Arguments: I am a fairly ideologically open-minded judge. Pursue strategies that you can execute at a high-level and/or will give you the best chance of winning. Recognize that those two approaches are not always the same. I am more concerned with the quality of the warrants than the content of the argument. That being said, it behooves you to flesh out arguments.
I think one of the great things about debate is the creative license that it affords students. Debate sometimes necessitates interacting with arguments that one may have little or no familiarity with. The same can be said with judging. Since this is the case, the only clarity I can provide on my views is outlining defaults on different argument structures which I am by no means bound to.
Paradigmatic Issues: These go into effect if you are radio silent on an issue.
I'll start with comparative worlds, as opposed to truth-testing, or any particular kritikal/performative pedagogy
General Principle/On Balance is not the same as Whole Resolution
Whole Resolution is much broader. Neg is allowed to read specific counter-advocacies. The burden of rejoinder is much looser here. I understand General principle/On Balance to mean the neg can only engage with generics. Please ask if there's any confusion.
If the aff reads a plan, plan focus is in effect
Solvency is not necessarily the same thing as a solvency advocate
For the framework, I default to epistemic confidence. This means I will only evaluate offense under the winning framework
Presumption flows neg unless the neg reads an Alt/CP in which case it flows aff
Alt/CPs- Status is conditional
Permutations function as a test of competition, not as an advocacy shift
2NR add-ons are fine but they have to be reactive to something in the 1AR, not the 1AC
Theory- Drop the Argument
Topicality and Meta-Theory - Drop the Debater
Competing Interps over reasonability
Fairness and Education are probably voters
Side Bias is probably negligible meaning it does not merit any compensation mechanism
I reserve the right to disregard arguments that are implicated in-round to suggest things like rape is good, that your opponent or myself should self-harm, and/or that participant's property should be damaged and/or vandalized. This coincides with my earlier point about being "part-hired contractor."
Sequencing detail: I think Topicality generally precedes theory. Kritik arguments can function on the same level as topicality and theory, although, not all kritiks inherently do.
Feel free to ask any questions!
P.S. I've found that a lot of objectively lower-quality arguments are winning rounds on the circuit because debaters are belittling them and/or not adequately addressed. If an argument is bad, do your due diligence and beat it on the line-by-line.
Email chain/ questions: email@example.com
arguments in order that i am comfy with them are
i can flow p much any spreading as long as its clear if i have a problem i will say something
I will vote on any argument as long as its not problematic, only if you sufficiently extend warrant, and implicate said argument.
If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.
Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads. I allow the first speaking team to extend defense from first rebuttal to first final focus. If you’re gonna read a super long overview or have a weird speech order please let me know before you start talking.
Arguments that I am comfortable with:
Arguments that I am comfortable with: Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, Kritiks, most framework args that PFers can come up with.
I presume too much, tell me why I should presume for you if you think you aren't going to win your case, if you don't make any arguments as to why I should presume I will presume based on a coin flip, aff will be heads and neg will be tails.
I also think I will be starting to vote more on risk of offense, in this scenario.
debate is problematic in many ways. if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand
I am a lay judge with some experience in public forum and speech, and limited experience in lincoln douglas.
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.
a. Hi! My name is Anna. I am a third-year law student.
b. Many years ago I debated throughout high school on the local and national level. I competed mainly in Congress but also in Public Forum. I have lots of experience judging debate and with principles of logic and argumentation.
a. I believe Public Forum was designed to (1) be an awesome learning and growing experience, and (2) fulfill its initial purpose. That being said, I believe that the purpose of PF is to be persuasive and accessible to all members of the public.
i. For that reason, I believe the debate should follow logical reasoning, explanation, and speed.
ii. For example, I prefer debaters do not talk too quickly and “spread” – I weigh the quality of content over the quantity of content. I do not come from a debate background where I am able to keep up with those fast talkers!
a. I will mainly base my judgment on your argumentation.
i. I keep flow during the debate, so I will primarily look for strong rebuttals on both sides.
1. This includes addressing opposing points directly and using empirical and logical-based reasoning to refute those arguments.
ii. I am big on organization.
1. I love to see arguments and final focus speeches presented in a clear and concise manner while attacking the other team’s points.
a. I greatly weigh courtesy of debaters.
i. I like productive cross-examination that allows each side respect and does not focus greatly on minutiae on a point.
ii. I penalize debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
iii. I like to see everyone is having fun.
Add me to the email chain: tannerhawthornej @ gmail.com. I coach Edina HS PF and extemp speaking.
I debated LD and PF for Edina High School for three years. I’m now a junior at Dartmouth, I'm on the policy team. I personally know Raam Tambe.
I can flow fast and will evaluate all arguments. The winner of my ballot will be the better debater(s), not the the debater(s) that run args I like. As such, I won't draw arbitrary lines at certain types of arguments. Speaks will suffer if a debater is rude/offensive. If you have more questions feel free to ask before the round.
For PF, I will not evaluate offense that’s dropped in summary. If you go for something in final focus it needs to be in summary (except d). PF is more about persuasion than the other debate events, I’ll keep that in mind. Weigh or you’re asking for intervention. Don’t really care about speed for PF but I haven’t seen speed give much of a competitive advantage on PF. Evidence ethics is the biggest problem I’ve encountered in PF. I will call for cards so be ready to have good evidence ethics. I will give incredibly low credence to bad ev ethics. Analytic responses are fine, misconstruing evidence is lying.
For LD, I’m good at flowing the T/CP/DA/stock FW debate but often don’t know the K lit. This doesn’t mean I’ll drop Ks, I just need a clear articulation. It probably needs to be slower than you're used to. I won't flow what I can't understand. Slow down for theory. You’re calling out in round abuse not reading a card so I need to understand what you’re saying. I also have a high threshold for frivolous theory.
For Policy, my experience is one term competing in college on the NDT/CEDA circuit.
I did extemp for three years for Edina. My career highlights were reaching NCFL and NSDA National finals. As a competitor, I always found it very helpful when speech judges had paradigms.
I am what you might call a content judge. But I do care about time and time allocation (it’s not a fair competition if you get 8 minutes while your opponents get only 7; tough to make a good point in only 30 seconds).
This is how I will rank you and your opponents:
1. Did you answer the question? If you did, I evaluate you against others who answered the question. If not, vice versa. This is the most important thing for me as a judge. Those who answer the question and answer it well will win the round. If you don’t answer the question (giving a “should” answer for a “will” speech, etc.) expect to get ranked at the bottom of my ballot.
2. Did your substructure make sense? Did your claims have warrants? Did you terminalize your impacts back to the question? Importantly, were there contradictions within your substructure or between your points (even if these weren’t expressely articulated, the logical conclusion of one point can contradict that of another points)?
3. Did you have evidence to support your arguments? Was it recent? Was it quality? Were your claims true?
4. How was your delivery? Was it fluid? Were you entertaining? Did you have a relevant AGD? Were you monotone or was there vocal variety? Did you have good on-tops? The reason why I care least about this is because evaluations of delivery are necessarily subjective. What entertains me will entertain others to a different degree or not at all. In my mind, a content focus is the only way to make extemp consistently fair.
When deciding between two or more high quality competitors, I find that four things set speakers apart:
1. Difficulty of question. If two speakers give equally good speeches but one answers a much more difficult question (triads, obscure policies/issues, etc.) that speaker will get a better rank (this is due to the same logic as opp. averages).
2. Quality of sources. Did you cite think tanks, esteemed professors/thinkers, journals, BOOKS?
3. Setting up the question. Did you give me key background on the actors/terms in the question and tell me the gravity/importance of the question? Did you explain to me what an answer means in terms of the wording of the question (what it means for a policy to be “successful” or “effective” etc.)?
I participated in both speech and public forum debate in high school. Currently a medical student who likes to stay engaged in the NSDA community. I appreciate all the time and effort students put into participating in these tournaments, so first and foremost have fun and know I appreciate your work. That said:
I am a flow judge. I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by debaters. I want to know what’s important to you upfront. Any strategy is okay as long as it’s logical and fair. Every stage in the debate matters, so I do flow the CX. Don’t be afraid to repeat important points you want me to vote on.
Generally: Understand your evidence and its context. Misrepresented evidence will count against you. If I call time, you may complete your present thought ONLY. Additional thoughts will not make it to my flow.
Crossfire: Do not talk over or interrupt your opponent. Allow your opponent a fair chance to both ask and answer your questions. Follow up questions are useful, but be gracious towards your opponent. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.
Final focus: Please clear up anything that has been muddled or remained vague during the round. New ideas or evidence brought up in summary will not be flowed.
Speaker points: I can keep up with fast- provided you do it well. Keep it clear, organized, and don’t forget to enunciate. For digital tournaments, please keep internet speed in mind, as well. I may be able to keep up with you but the internet connection may not. Lastly, I have no patience for rudeness or condescension. Win with your wit.
Please let me know if there are any accommodations you should need from me.
My debate experience:
Current assistant coach at Trinity Prep
3 Years of NFA-LD Debate (Current debater at Illinois State University)
4 Years of Public Forum debate
4 Years of Congressional debate
It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.
- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.
- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.
- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.
- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.
- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.
- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts
- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.
- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.
- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.
- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.
-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style
-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.
- If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.
I am a parent/lay judge who is learning "flow" for public forum debate. I appreciate clarity over speed, as well as respectful disagreement. I expect you to synthesize and apply your research, not simply provide citations.
if there is 0 offense left in the round, I will presume for the team that was more polite in crossfire. If both teams were pretty polite, I'll presume neg. However if you want to convince me that i should presume first i am happy to listen to that
I am a parent judge so please...
- DO NOT spread/speak really fast
-clearly make arguments. If the argument is really confusing or has a lot of links, you are already at a disadvantage.
-Do not run theory of Ks or anything of the sort because I really do not know how to evaluate them and I do not want to unfairly make a choice. I have nothing against them. I just do not want to judge a k or theory unfairly since I'm a parent judge with no experience in them.
-Do not assume I will make the connections fo you, try to make all the necessary connections or points that you will think win you the round (includes but not limited to extending links/warrants, impacts/impact calc, weighing)
chazkinz [at] gmail [dot] com
350+ VLD rounds since 2018
I study IR and English at the University of Florida.
Conflicts: Interlake, Sarasota, Oak Hall, Cypress Bay, Altamont, Valley, Durham AA, Durham BT, Charlotte Latin EL, Charlotte Latin AP, Valley. Currently with Lake Highland.
This is a consolidated paradigm updated in April 2021.
a] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot free. Examples include charts, spec details, and solvency details. This is a terrible norm and you are literally asking me to evaluate a card/analytics that you didn't read. If you think "it only matters if they ask in CX," then why did you include it in the doc?
b] I strongly encourage you to record local copies of your speeches, but this is not something that I can expect/mandate out of all debaters.
c] Online debate is alienating. I am now more than ever impressed by high school debaters that continue to engage in this rigorous activity as we live through a mass death event. Take care of yourself and let me know if there is something I can do to better accommodate you in this virtual terrain.
d] Slam dunk 2NRs (esp on the K) are easily my favorite part of LD.
e] I'm now in the world of PF...so yeah. A few notes on this: 1] "Fast" PF is actually harder to flow than LD/Policy because of all the cards that PF cases throw at me 2] being able to analyze factual information and draw conclusions is one of the most valuable aspects of debate. "dO yOu hAvE a cArD fOr tHAt" as a response to an argument that scares you makes you lose a lot of credibility to me. 3] Disclosure is probably a good norm in PF, but I don't want to hear disclosure theory in PF rounds. I don't want to hear theory in PF rounds.
Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. It is a very important form of education.
K debate: I love it. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. My academic focus in school is Frankfurt School critical theory and some Lacan. In debate, I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases.
Policy debate: Love it. I’m not a fan of the judge kick. I like good analytics more than cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to explained and should not be arguments in and of themselves. Taglines should be descriptive of the warrants in the card. 2 or 3 condo is acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking.
T Debate: I’ve heard too much of it. If there is a topic-specific interp that you’re a fan of and execute well, go for it. I am so tired of judging Nebel T debates that come down to PICs every other round. For framework, I think that out of round impacts (advocacy skills, movement building) are more convincing than in round impacts (procedural fairness, etc.), especially when answering micropolitical affs.
Theory Debate: Increasingly okay with it. Disclosure is good but frivolous disclosure theory is annoying.
If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.
- Tricks can be fun but also abusive and non-educational. I think that I am a bigger fan of philosophy-inspired tricks than theory-inspired tricks.
- please use verbatim to unihighlight your docs into yellow
- be brief with sending docs
- have the email chain ready at the round's start time
- defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume aff; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; no RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR
- I’m a huge fan of well-formatted Verbatim docs
- I do not disclose speaker points
- All analytics should be included in speech docs
- Trigger warnings are good
- humor is appreciated!
- CX ends when the timer beeps
I run a software consulting firm here in Bay area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and have judged in the past 2 years at a few tournaments in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Speech, and Congress as well.
Things I would be judging will be based on the following criteria
- Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).
- Topic grounded strategies/demonstration of research and topic knowledge are good for speaks.
- I am the numbers guy and like to hear solid numbers or quantitative data for your arguments.
- Quality always trumps quantity.
- Evidence matters, but your explanation matters more. Great cards that are explained terribly won't get maximal weight.
- Clarity over speed
- Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate
- I have researched the topic to some extent but do not understand very nuanced arguments.
- I like when two teams have clash on their cases, but don't be overly aggressive or rude when pointing it out.
- Insults, rudeness, and swearing are not good and will be looked down upon .
- Respect your competitors, partner and the time everyone in the room puts into this activity.
- I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place. That is my very Important criteria for judging of debate rounds
Finally make the debate fun. Being nice is good. Smile and have fun. Winning and losing is a part of life so have fun and enjoy and do your best.
Hello, I am a parent judge. Please speak slow enough that the average person can hear clearly. If I don't understand something I will not flow.
Couple of things:
- I like off time roadmaps.
- I don't vote on crossfire.
- Please frontline/defend your case.
Confident and clear speaking will get you a higher score. Clear enunciation.
Use tones. Do not speak monotonously. When you are saying something important, make it clear that it is important, whether through your words, your voice, or both.
Hey, my name is Bryce! (he/they)
Put me on the Chain, Email: Bryce.Keeler720@gmail.com
Create a chain for constructives, online debate sucks
Debated for 3 years at Westwood High School
* Debate is a game, I'm not a policy maker
* Tech > Truth
* Cut cards, Strike me if you don't
* auto drop for racism/sexism/homophobia or anything I deem problematic that can make the debate space unsafe for others. If you are, auto loss with 25s.
* Line by line
* Always respond to turns/disads
* Framing is good
* definitely the most important speech in the round
* Warrant extensions should exist especially with 3-minute summaries
* Collapse pls
* Hella weighing, that's the easiest path to my ballot
* Implicate everything and do comparative interaction on the warrant/link/and impact level
* I don't buy sticky defense
* Evidence is very sketchy in pf so if they tell me to call for a piece of evidence I will probably call for it
* Cut cards are preferred and get you +1 speaks
* I start at a 28 and go up and down from there
* Good strategy in round will get you higher speaks and bad extensions and behavior will get you lower speaks
* Saying protention instead of contention when you are on the aff will garner +0.5 speaks.
* I am okay with speed but if you are spreading I should get a speech doc and you should send one to the opponents too
* I always default neg unless a presumption arg is read
* Go for it, I am fine with theory and K's
* If you want to run progressive arguments, please run them correctly
* CPs are fine too
* I love non-t affs
* Everything is fine but I probably won't understand high theory
* Everything above applies
* Tricks are bummy, you probably shouldn't run them
* I really like CPs and Ks, please run them
If you have any questions ask before the round
Also, If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know before the round :)
Coached PF and LD for the past 5 years at Phoenix Country Day School in Arizona where I also teach economics. PF and LD competitor in 2003. I have judged Public Forum and LD at all levels over the past 15 years.
I do believe that Public Forum should be accessible to all levels of judge experience, and I am less inclined to see arguments that serve to exclude the general public amicably. That being said, I hate intervening in rounds, so it is your opponents' job to explain why those arguments do not meet the spirit of public forum, are antithetical to the educational purpose of the event, and/or create levels of abuse that tip the balance towards one side or the other.
Tabula Rasa - I'll only intervene if something egregious or offensive occurs that an educator needs to step in and correct. Otherwise, I'll vote on the arguments in the round and weigh the impacts through the frameworks that are presented. If there are competing frameworks in the round, show me why you win through both of them.
I have had 6 years of experience judging for various schools. I first started judging for Mission San Jose High School and am now judging for Stonewall Academy. The majority of my judging has been in Public Forum and I am familiar in the fundamental concepts of the format.
I always come in with an open mind and vote based off of each side's arguments rather than personal bias. In order to win the round it is important that each side weighs each of their impacts. If impacts aren't weighed I won't flow them. If you want higher speaker points and want me to be able to flow your arguments, it is important that you speak clearly and at a good pace. I also appreciate it if you give me a little background into the topic and clear up a few things. Each side should provide a standard for me to weigh on so I can vote for a side based on the impacts. Both sides can also argue which standard is more relevant to the debate and which I should be judging on. If neither side proposes a standard for the debate I will just be judging on which side makes the world a better place. As for links, make sure that your links are logical and aren't huge jumps. If you suddenly jump from the EU joining the BRI to a nuclear war, I won't buy it. Please don't run theory. I will only take it into account if it is actually justified and reasonable (which it almost never is). Lastly, if a side brings up a new argument or point in Final Focus, I will ignore it. You're just going to be wasting your time.
I will reward a debater with more speaker points if they remain clear and speak at an understandable pace. I dislike spreading as I feel its unnecessary. It is also important that each speaker is respectful in crossfire and other speeches. If any debater starts yelling and is overly aggressive I will lower their total speaker points for the round.
If you have any other questions feel free to ask me during the round. I hope you provide me with an interesting debate!
I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and be respectful of your opponents.
I competed for Quarry Lane for two years and I debated for Dougherty Valley for 2 years, all of it in PF. I've gone to major tournaments like Berkeley, Stanford, Golden Desert, etc, and qualified to TOC.
I did not debate CPs/theory/K's/other similar argumentation and I have little experience with them, but I can vote on it if you explain it well enough.
Go slower than usual because of online. Slow down to emphasize analytics. I can keep up with moderate speed, but keep in mind that all I have done is PF. I have no topic knowledge.
Please put theory into formal shells, NOT paragraph form.
I'm fine with 1 condo. I can be persuaded against it if there are more.
I probably won't vote for trix or Phil.
I don't presume. I flip a coin.
Make speech docs during prep time.
Email or flash cases.
Card clipping and violation of evidence ethics is an automatic loss.
Tech > Truth
I don't intervene but debater math makes me want to.
Please have a content warning for any sensitive arguments and have a way for debaters in the round to anonymously ask you not to read them if necessary (phone number, google form, etc).
You can talk as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I will say clear if I don't understand you. You can also send me a speech doc at firstname.lastname@example.org. Share the speech doc if you have any concern that I will not understand you.
Say the card author and date whenever you want to extend it. Have the cut card if anyone calls for it. If it takes more than 3 min to find a card, I will drop speaks.
Do not paraphrase cards to say whatever you want them to. If nobody tells me to call for a card, I have no reason to.
I will buy any argument as long as it is warranted.
Defense is sticky so defense that is not responded to in the next speech flows through.
Turns need to be implicated when they are read. If you card dump a bunch of blippy responses in Rebuttal, I'm more inclined to not vote for you if the warrants are not explained.
Please collapse in later speeches. Please sign post in all speeches.
Any argument being extended into Final Focus needs to be in Summary or else I won't vote for it. I also need to hear weighing in Summary and Final Focus to know who to vote for. Do not make new responses to defense that was not responded to in second Rebuttal. Do not make new arguments in second Final Focus.
If you make a racist/homophobic/sexist/ableist/etc comment, I will drop you and lower speaks.
I will give high speaks unless you give me a reason not to. I will give even higher speaks if you're funny.
Feel free to email me any questions at email@example.com or ask me before the round.
Lay judge with local experience. Please do not spread.
I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged national circuit tournaments, including the ToC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.
Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.
I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me. I will stop flowing if you are speaking too fast, so please pay attention to that.
I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.
If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do.
I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.
As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.
Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.
Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact withtout warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.
The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.
DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!
DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.
And finally progressive debate-I really don't have preferences for progressive arguments, except that you do them correctly, and are not using them as a gimmick to win a round. I will evaluate Ks and theory, but they are not a huge part of debate in my state in PF, run at your own risk.
I am a lay judge. Feel free to add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I may not call/read a card unless you mention it in speech, so make sure you do that.
Do not assume that I am familiar with your arguments, so lay them out clearly.
It is best to number each argument, and clearly identify the argument that you are countering ("their Point 2," etc.).
Don't speak so quickly that I can't take accurate notes.
Please collapse. Make it very clear that you are only going for one argument, if that's the case.
If another team does something abusive (raising new points in later speeches), explain why that's bad (saying "You can't evaluate X, it was brought up too late so you can't evaluate it" should do it).
Make sure you emphasize and lay out your weighing. Explain why your impact is more important. I will not weigh for you.
In summary and ff, be specific as to why you're winning the round and why the other team is losing.
If you don't speak too quickly and explain your arguments well you'll do fine.
During a PF debate, I will decide the outcome primarily based on strength of argument, mastery of delivery and overall soundness relative to the other team. Also, I’m not afraid of being a bit brusque to defend or argue a point. Just don’t be rude. Also, I am not a particular fan of spreading or card dumping.
Ten Commandments to be Good at Debate:
1. relax and have fun!
2. signpost in speeches
3. start weighing early
4. for novices at little lex: if you are first rebuttal, PLEASE do not extend your case if you don't know what else to say, just end it early.
5. frontline turns and DA's in 2nd rebuttal
6. 3 min summary should have offense, defense, and WEIGHING in it
7. summary and ff should collapse and mirror each other. I love great back half narratives so literally, paint a solid picture of how you are winning and I'll pick you up.
8. Progressive stuff:
- Don't read theory unless there was an actual harmful abuse conducted by the other team. If you are a PF debater who thinks they are *tech* by reading disclosure/paraphrase/random frivolous theory for easy wins please stop (also, if you are reading prog args against inexperienced debaters it is abusive).
9. speaks (not the same for novice tourney)
29.5-30: you are raw
29-29.5: you are really good
28.5-29: you are pretty nice with it
28-28.5: you are above average
27-28: you can do better
<27: you are toxic
10. don't be toxic, a lot of novice rounds are just people yelling at each other, be chill to everyone and it will make the activity much more enjoyable. Any sort of -ism's in round finna get you auto dropped and I will tank your speaks, so be kind and accepting to everyone :)
I have a judged a few times before but I am still very new. Clarity is most important to me so make your arguments understandable and don't go too fast. I will do my best to evaluate the round and the team that seems most prepared and defends their points best will win.
I greatly prefer a slow, articulate speaking style to one that's fast and messy and am not a fan of spreading. Usually, I'll vote on whichever team can extend their most important points with well articulated facts to back them up, and explain why I should way them as more important than their opponents.
I am a very fair/neutral judge and listen intently to each side. I firmly support that debaters present solid evidence to back up their claims. Lastly, please speak clearly and distinctly when presenting your position.
Dougherty Valley '19
The Ohio State University '23
Add me to the email Chain: email@example.com
If you are comfortable, please email me a speech doc before each speech. It makes judging so much easier especially on zoom :)
haven't judged in lowkey a minute, be kind. Haven't judged on the topic either so i'm not too familiar with the literature, cards, etc. If there is a problem, make it clear, if an argument doesn't make sense, tell me why.
I competed nationally in PF and Extemp in HS, did a bit of Congress and LD as well.
I am tabula Rasa, and I'll vote on anything.
I try really hard to be non-interventional, but with more and more debaters reading scripts instead of cards, etc. I've grown the habit of calling for cards to confirm statements made by debaters.
I like warranted arguments. In fact, I would buy a strong Warranted and logical argument over an argument backed my evidence any day. Although I'll vote on anything, this is just how I evaluate it. I really enjoy impact calculus and would like to see that starting to be set up in Summary and maybe even in rebuttal. Just be really clear and extend your links cleanly.
I believe that 2nd Rebuttal should frontline, at least that's what I always did. I think it is a better competitive choice for 2nd Speaking team. At least touch the major offensive points of the case.
I am open to any critical argument and theory; however, I HATE frivolous theory. While I Think debate is a game, I do believe that public forum was an event made to be accessible to all as LD and policy became more progressive. That being said, go for it but proceed at your own caution.
Go as fast as you want, I'll tell you if you're going too fast. but for zoom, go slower.
Speaks depends on my mood. I won't ever go lower than a 27 for national rounds unless you give me a reason to tho.
Wear what you want, I just care about what you say (although I will include feedback for future lay rounds)
MY PARADIGM is also very similar to Saad Jamals:)
Don't be afraid to ask Questions before the round because I know this Paradigm is short, but don't overcomplicate it!
I debated four years of public forum debate in high school for The Altamont School and now do APDA at Brown U.
I consider myself to be a really normal judge and don't have any really interesting demands, but here are some things that can help guide how you take on the round!
1) PRE-FLOW: please preflow before round! I will not let yall do it in the room if the round should have started already.
2) EXPLANATION: contextualize cards; explain why they are important and how they support your point/ interact with your opponents case. not doing this makes it really difficult as a judge to understand how you want the round to play out and usually leads to forced intervention
3) 2ND SPEAKING TEAM: you gotta cover turns in 2nd rebuttal. if you don't cover turns then it is offense for the first speaking team.
4) 1ST SPEAKING TEAM: you can extend defense from first rebuttal to final focus but pls try to have some in first summary. I expect at least some defense in 1st summary, especially since there are 3 minutes for the summary now.
5) WEIGHING: even if something is "clean-dropped" you still need to weigh it. I will have a hard time voting on any argument (no matter how cleanly extended) if I am not sure why it's important.
A)if you are making an argument about harms to countries that are viewed as "developing" by a western hierarchical perspective, or discussing in your case or in weighing, please be respectful and don't make your own uncarded analysis about the struggles these countries have. I would also prefer not to hear weighing analyses about these countries that mention anything about "these countries have so little" etc.
B) if you are running an implementation/process of getting the bill to the public argument, do so at your own risk. I generally do not find these arguments persuasive or topical, and chances are that if your opponent says I should not evaluate those kind of arguments in a debate round I will drop it from my flow. An example of this is "the united states should not pass ____ because it would be torn up in the courts/loaded with riders."
C) if you are running an econ argument, please be sure to explain it really well in extensions in ff and summary. in my experience, econ rounds are the most difficult to judge because of clarity problems in link extensions and warranting, so make sure you spend time explaining it!
7) EXTENSIONS: don't extend through ink. interact with the argument you are responding to and dont just say "my opponents dropped ___" when they really did not. Frequent issues with extensions through ink lead to lower speaker points and a worse round :(
8) EVIDENCE: I will call for cards you tell me to call for if they are highly important to the debate round. I will also call for any card that seems too good to be true. Evidence ethics is very important and I will intervene if I catch faulty evidence
she/her -- and yes, email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
former 2a at brooklyn tech '18
**absolutely zero topic knowledge for 2020-21** and i'm less knowledgable about LD*
I went for the K on the aff and neg most of the time and will be able to get a good grasp on most kritiks, especially those that grapple with race and gender, albeit my familiarity with more theoretical literature/dead white man stuff is very limited. To be really honest I kind of hate it. However, I will vote using my flow every time so the point of all this is to please do you and whatever you feel most comfortable with. Be nice to each other and have a good time.
William Cheung and Leo Zausen were my coaches so look at their pages for a more comprehensive idea of how I judge.
tl;dr: I don't care what you read as long as it's not oppressive and violent in any way, as those debates are the best ones. Also please err on the side of using less debate jargon as I only judge sometimes and no longer debate in college.
If you have any lingering questions please don't hesitate to email or fb message me, or ask before the round starts.
Parent Judge. Please speak slowly. I will not be flowing.
Speaker points are based on fluency.
For an additional 1 speaking points send me speech docs to help me follow along better.
My email is email@example.com
plano west '21; they/them; email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
* read trigger/content warnings with opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 25s
* "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi, aka don’t blow up a turn in the second final focus and pretend like the warranting was in rebuttal :)
* i have a pretty high threshold for argument extension (like, the entire link chain from uniqueness to impact needs to be explained), so if your extensions/warrants are blippy, i won't automatically drop you, but your speaks... also ?? maybe you should collapse on one piece of offense instead of unleashing havoc on the flow with a billion pieces of sad little dangling blips of offense ??
* unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense
* warrants > evidence; i won't call for evidence unless (1) you tell me to, or (2) the round is so messy that i absolutely have to. if i don't call for any of your evidence, don't be weird and ask me if i need to see anything from you or try to explain your evidence lol
* i am totally open to progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. i’m more familiar with theory than k’s, so if running a k please walk me through it as clearly as possible. reading tricks or friv theory when your opponents aren’t also memeing is so cringe
* i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. that being said, send your speech docs
* email chain > google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...
* i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails tell me why i presume for you or i else i may or may not flip a coin daniel yan-style smile
feel free to ask questions before/after the round! i’m fine with postrounding as long as you’re not too aggro about it
if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open
Howdy! I am a former competitor (middle/high school) and a coach originally from AZ. I have experience competing/judging/coaching almost all speech and debate events except for policy.
I consider over-generalizing arguments to be harmful to the debate space. Running arguments along the lines of "X people are not suffering" or "no one has this problem anymore" will hurt your results. Use your clearest judgement when using absolute statements. Your perspective and evidence can only be stretched to an extent. For many conversations in s&d, we have the privilege of discussing topics we will never face; speak with that privilege in check.
Lastly, be kind and have fun! You've got this. Good luck! Feel free to ask me any questions!
Impacts and weighing are crucial.
Engage and build. Engage with the round and build upon previous speeches by adding new information. Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.
If the debate starts to repeat the same arguments, please move to question.
Happy to consider the PO in my ranking. PO must show a good knowledge of procedures and run a smooth chamber.
I prefer traditional LD and am not a big fan of progressive LD. If you are going to run theory or a K, I need to clearly understand why it is being used. I understand progressive LD jargon decently and will not automatically vote you down for a use of progressive LD, but if its use is unclear, it will affect my decision.
I am looking for weighing arguments/impacts and clear structure/sign posting.
I do not flow cross ex - if you bring up an important point during cx, make sure to include it in your speeches. I will still provide feedback about CX though and it could affect your speaker points.
Moderate speed - while I am familiar with spreading, moderate speed allows me to properly flow all of your arguments.
I appreciate context and clarity with stats (esp econ is not my strongest suit). I am looking for weighing arguments/impacts and clear structure/sign posting.
1st speaker and 2nd speaker are both valuable and challenging roles to take on - for 1st speakers, I typically look for an ability to synthesize the debate and create a clear narrative of why your team is winning; for 2nd speakers, I typically look for direct clash and key voters in the final focus.
I do not flow crossfire - if you bring up an important point during crossfire, make sure to include it in your speeches. I will still provide feedback about your crossfire though and it could affect your speaker points.
Moderate speed - while I am familiar with spreading, moderate speed allows me to properly flow all of your arguments.
Put Me on the chain email@example.com
Second rebuttal should rebuild your own case and respond to theirs
Comparatives very important
This can be evidence comparison too
Impact calc is key
CX is not binding
Link ins and prerequisites are good and useful weighing args that should be made
Don't hesitate to call for evidence
When sending cards in the email chain, send cut cards, not just links
I'm down to hear progressive arguments
Speed is alright
Back half specifics
- Extensions in summary need to be clear and warranted
- Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar
- Defense in ff needs to be in summary
- Collapse hard on a few arguments
Speaks — will drop you and your speaks for exclusionary language or behaviours
Don’t spread unless the speed you use allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. English is my second language if you speak too fast I will have hard time comprehending what you say.
for Police debate, I’m more like combination of policy maker and tabular rasa. Better policy has to make sense at first. But if 50/50, debate out needs to be done with strong argument and logics to support.
Hi, I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly! I have judged pf before, but not extensively. In round, make sure that you're using logic to explain your arguments thoroughly as well. If you see me writing, don't take it seriously, I am just taking notes. Don't be rude and have fun!
Hi this is his daughter that does PF and from what he's told me abt judging here are some tips if he's judging you:
-he doesnt flow everything u say :((( so make sure you're emphasizing the most important things he should be flowing
-he won't feel comfortable voting off your argument if he doesn't understand the logic (if he doesn't understand either side he randomly chooses lol so TALK SLOW and MAKE SENSE)
-he likes it when you have arguments that directly clash (pro and con both run the same arg i.e. innovation) but he also likes clean extensions of args that go conceded
-when you rebuttal/frontline doing line by lines and signposting he will be impressed and less confused
-also he works in like biology/physics/medical related stuff and knows a lot abt pharma so be accurate lol or he'll know
I am a lay judge. Please speaker slower and clearly.
Clarity of the speech: Not too fast (please don't do 300 wpm), not too slow. I am flowing the entire session with all of you, so I appreciate everyone do not miss any important contentions.
Facts and figures: Whenever you cite a number, please include the source. Reputable sources command a higher winning score. Your interpretation of the source is required, don't just quote it without explaining how it validates your position.
Professionalism: I pay special attention to all speakers' eloquence, being aggressive is okay, but not personal insults. Confident speakers usually come with well-prepared speeches, and I am looking forward to an educational exchange of rebuttals and crossfire.
Points: All speaker points start from 27, extra points awarded for logical links, extending good warrants, and impacts.
I will not call for cards unless I need it for my flow verification.
Content warnings for sensitive topics need to be disclosed at the very beginning.
"I have little to no understanding of theory, run it at your own risk!"
I'm currently a sophomore in college. I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington High School. I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with any type of argument. That being said, I do have some preferences that'll be helpful for me and you in terms of evaluating a round.
SCROLL DOWN FOR LD PARADIGM. (command f LD)
- Weigh. Clash is SO important and is too often avoided. All your arguments should be connected and should flow in a way that I can directly compare one to another. If both teams are talking about separate topics that don't interact, that's a pretty unsuccessful round, and I won't know where to vote.
- Extend. If something is dropped in any speech, I won't evaluate it, even if it's brought up again later. Make sure anything you want to factor into the decision is mentioned in every speech, and is especially emphasized in final focus. If its not brought all the way into your last speech, I'll consider it conceded, and won't vote on it.
- Sign post. If I don't know what you're talking about, I won't factor it into my decision.
- Be polite to your opponents. If you're rude, definitely expect me to lower speaks. It doesn't help you in any way to ruin what should otherwise be a good round with a bad attitude. Have fun and be nice and you'll have no problems.
- Most importantly - and what I'll be paying most attention to - use your last two speeches (especially final focus) to CLEARLY tell me why you should win the round over your opponent. The clearer you are, the easier it will be for me to make my decision, and the happier you'll be with the outcome. I vote off both offense and defense so make sure to maximize your voters.
Some little things:
- I'm fine w speed
- Time your own speeches and prep
- I don't flow/vote off cross. Anything you want me to remember should be brought up during speeches
- I love unconventional arguments
- DON'T have a loud conversation while I'm filling out my ballot omg i cannot express how much this irritates me
- If you're funny and make me laugh, +0.2 speaks
- If you try too hard to be funny and you're not, -0.1 speaks because you disrupted the round
- TIK TOK REFERENCES, +0.3 speaks. I love tik tok.
The debate is about you so have fun! I'm chill with anything as long as you do everything listed above:)
Feel free to ask any other questions before the round!
FEB TOURNAMENTS** This is my first time judging LD since I debated LD junior year of high school (I'm a sophomore in college now). Keep that in mind! Since I've been hearing only PF recently, I might not be really familiar with your super out there args.
- I love K's. I ran K's.
- I also love disads/counterplans.
- I'm not thattt into phil but I'll def vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure it is and that you actually understand it. If you barely understand the lit how am I supposed to figure it out from you ya kno.
- I don't like frive theory, tricks, rvis, nibs, and any other underdeveloped sketchy argument. If you really can't go without it, a few spikes or NECESSARY T/theory is alright and I'll vote on it... prob reluctantly.
- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I probably won't know where to vote and you probably won't be happy with my decision. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote you up, so just explain everything clearly and you'll be set:)
- FOR ONLINE DEBATES: slow down! It's almost impossible to understand when either my or your computer's slow. I'm fine with speed otherwise though if you're CLEAR!! If i can't understand you though, I'll dock your speaks.
Hi I'm Marie! I did pf for 4 years in high school, I'm currently a freshman in college.
I'll flow the round-make sure to explain everything clearly, collapse, and weigh. I won't flow cross, so if anything important happens tell me in a speech.
1. Keep your own time.
2. Extend your arguments. If you want me to vote on an argument, explain it clearly in summary and final focus.
3. Frontline in second rebuttal. If you're the second speaking team, defend any arguments you want to extend in second rebuttal.
4. Please collapse!!!!! Please please please don't extend more than 1 (maybe 2) arguments in summary. It's better to clearly explain 1 contention than speed through 3.
5. Weigh, tell me why your argument is more important than your oppenents'.
6. Be nice is crossfire. Don't interrupt or talk over your opponents. If you do, I'll drop speaks.
Most importantly be nice and have fun!
I am a parent judge with one and half years of experience in judging Public Forum. Never competed Public Forum or any other Forensic activities, but I am a biomedical scientist and do research, analysis, and interpret scientific data on a daily basis.
Since English is not my first language, I prefer clear and not too fast speech, so I can catch up the words and meaning of your talk.
I use following criteria when I judge a round:
Were the arguments intelligent? Your response to the arguments
The discrediting to the opposition’s response
The debaters back up their assertions with logical thinking and evidence when needed
Fair in interpretation of the resolution and one another’s statements?
Who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round?
I don’t weight much on the speed of speech, believe less words with sound arguments are much better than too much words which have to be delivered with fast speech.
Don’t have preference on the format of Summary Speeches, and evaluate argument over style.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, their arguments have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches. If a team is second speaking, I prefer that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech.
Don’t vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus.
I did PF for four years, now I’m a coach for Walt Whitman and a college debater.
If you’re comfortable, please put your pronouns in your tab account.
I'm a pretty standard tech judge, however I care infinitely more about good logical warranting than cards.
I can deal with any speed, but if you're going fast please signpost clearly.
I don't require all defense to be extended in first summary, however if it's frontlined you should respond if you want to extend it.
If you have any questions about my feedback or decision, feel free to ask. Be respectful tho.
Background: I did extemp and policy in high school, I currently do extemp in college. I ran more pragmatic arguments in high school. That being said, I haven't heard fast spreading in a long time, so please be as clear as possible, especially online. If you cannot be clear then please speak slower.
Affs: I am fine with critical affs, but you need to defend topicality, solvency, etc.
Negs: I'm fine with k's, but cover your bases. I am not well read into critical theory, so if you are obscure theory or a complicated take on theory, explain it like you are talking to a five year old. I will vote neg on presumption, but the burden flips if negative runs a counteradvocacy. I am fine with T, make sure you have a whole T shell. A definition without voters or standards is not a topicality argument
Any questions, feel free to email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence. You don't get to give someone a link and say CTRL F yourself. Prepare your evidence correctly or be dropped.
If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round
TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 7 years since then. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below
Philosophy of Debate:
Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.
I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told
Judge preferences that must be met:
When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters must signpost every argument and every response (Parli). If you don’t tell me where to flow, I won’t write your argument. You also must have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.
Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)
Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.
Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.
Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.
Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” in round and you do not comply, there is a good chance you will lose. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.
I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.
I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.
Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.
Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.
Public Forum specifics:
I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.
I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.
Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.
Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.
Lincoln Douglass and Policy:
I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.
Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com
I'm a parent judge who brings a multi-cultural and international sensibility to my role, a perspective also informed by more than 25 years of practice in the field of law. With clients that have included hi-tech companies, venture capital funds, and a governmental agency, I have always sought a fact-based and science-driven outlook that values substance over style and rationality over rhetoric. May the best debaters prevail!
Hi, I did Public Forum debate for four years at Lake Mary Prep in Orlando, Florida.
Some things I like:
Warrants and lines of logic over evidence that is unwarranted
Weighing, the earlier the better
Front-lining in Second Rebuttal. You don't have to do this but I think it is a good idea
Collapsing ***** 3 min summary does not mean go for more, just COLLAPSE BETTER *****
My coach always used to say "50% fewer arguments and 100% more analysis"
Some things I don't like:
Miscut Evidence. I am fine with paraphrasing but please make sure its an accurate representation of the evidence (I reserve the right to drop you if it is seriously misrepresented)
Blippy Arguments that are not weighed, warranted, or implicated
Theory / Ks unless there is a serious issue or abuse in the topic or the round. I am also really bad at understanding these, so you should probably strike me if this is your thing.
Any bigoted argument I will immediately drop you no questions asked.
To Summarize, In the poetic words of Ozan Ergrunor:
i begged you
Nothing will lose my favor or interest faster than a debate on the rules of debate. I appreciate well-researched cases and strong link chains, but I find spreading to be borderline intolerable. I want to see unfavorable points negated with elegant use of evidence and logic. Attempting to dominate a round with jargon and technicalities overshadows the sharing of ideas and the ability to learn from one another, which in my opinion, flies directly in the face of and casts a shadow on this art form. That being said, don’t be afraid to bring attention to outright abusive argumentation - just be prepared to back up what you’re saying in a way that just and truthful. I like your personalities to shine through and for your communication styles to have an individual essence. Please don’t make me have to judge rounds based on who is the fastest or trickiest robot. It truly breaks my heart. Manage your own time so that I can pay attention to what you’re saying. Use a timer that I’ll be able to hear, but if it goes off, complete your thought as quickly and neatly as possible without just dropping it. Any new points introduced after time will count against you. I’m a fidgety sitter and prefer to flow by hand so I’ll usually turn off my camera while people are speaking, so as not to cause a distraction as I flip pages and scratch away. Please let me know if you’d prefer I didn’t do so.
I didn’t get serious about public forum until about halfway through my high school speech career, and by my senior year, it was my main event. That year, my partner and I won both our NSDA (formerly NFL) National Qualifying tournament, and our state’s local organization’s championship. I always prided myself on my relaxed, easy going, evidence and logic based, and respectful but fun speaking style. Remember that most of your judges are not former debaters and that you have an enormous opportunity to educate adults and maybe even change their minds about some things when you communicate effectively. My favorite thing about judging is getting a glimpse at the future leaders of our nation’s government and workplaces, for the most part, you all give me a tremendous amount of hope. Thank you for your participation and congratulations to all of you for your hard work.
I am a first year at Williams College. This is my 8th year of competitive debate. (1 year APDA, 4 years PF, 3 years MS Parli) I was a captain at the Trinity school in NYC and attended TOC twice.
I can handle speed, but for the sake of everyone's sanity, CLEARER is better than faster.
I am not tech over truth, but I can only evaluate what is brought up in round. So, while I am more likely to vote for what is true, you must convince me what the truth is or tech can absolutely win.
Don't misquote your cards. I won't call for them unless there is extreme disagreement over their content (which I would prefer not to happen), but I will if necessary.
Comparative weighing please. I will only vote off of what has been comparatively weighed, preferably earlier than FF.
Extend both evidence AND warrants for your contentions. Not just the tagline. Same goes for responses.
Please be friendly to each other, and if not friendly then at least civil. I will be very hesitant to vote for you if you are obnoxious. Debate is supposed to be fun and that is difficult when people aren't nice to one another. If not, I will drop your speaks.
If you make a hand motion at any point during the round that I have never seen before, I will increase your speaks by 1 point. (This only works once per round; I will not infinitely increase your speaks if you spend all of cross doing the macarena).
remi (she/ her) I'm a sophomore at gw studying IA and environmental studies. I did pf in hs but consider me flay
also tell me your pronouns and names before the round starts!
read the resolution before the round for me on day 1 of tournaments plz
EXTEND your warrants and impacts (quantified preferably) plz -- if you want it voted on, it has to be said in summary AND final focus
basic jargon is fine (DL, turn, extend, time frame) but don't go crazy
I don't write down card names, stats or warrants yes but not names sources or years so if you mention a card name and don't explain it ill be confused
I don't evaluate cross fire, if something happens, tell me in a speech
read content warnings on everything I would appreciate it
if you wanna wear sweats or a hoodie that's fine, come in a hat for all I care!
I dont know how to evaluate theory and K's but if you wanna try you can lol
dont be rude and have fun!
Not best judge for theory
The framework debate should be prioritized in EVERY SPEECH. I prioritize persuasion, TRUTH over TECH, and clarity.
Criteria for high speaks: Your arguments are supported by specific evidence and I am able to follow your arguments THROUGHOUT the round (obviously, the winner will get the higher speaker point. I rarely give low point wins.)
Read the policy section. It applies to LD as well.
1. Whether the politic you're endorsing is institutional or communal, please show up with a method that makes sense and works
- you cant just put a bunch of kritikal literature in an aff, say the world sucks, and be like "at least the conversation is good" OR throw me a whole bunch of inherency about pollution in the South China Sea with one solvency card from a Huffington Post article
- I personally have done more K debate but I also admire the style of traditional debates: state action, counterplans, disads, give me all of it. I'll bump your speaks if you read a disad with a terminal impact that isn't nuclear war or extinction lmao
2. If you're going to go for discourse as an impact/voter, tell me how the discourse you provide affects the demographic for which you are advocating and
- In other words, what does "burning it down",or "the libidinal economy", or "post-metaphysical dynamics" mean for shorty in line at the welfare office? What about that white dude in the coal mine in Arkansas?
3. Cross Ex is binding, say it wit' ya chest.
A hack for my ballet: The more simple the better. Aff should do something and the ideal neg strategy should be some case specific case turns coupled with a kritik or counterplan
- I've done PF at several national and local tournaments
- Keep in mind that public forum debate serves to communicate complex messages with public forums so your discussion should ALWAYS sound/seem accessible to those who don't debate. No super special language, arguments about what should be"common sense/knowledge", or bad attitudes.
Quick questions and stuff: email@example.com with the subject line "DEBATE JUDGING"
This is the second year judging PF. I have watched a demo video and read the material provided by the tournament for judges.
Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.
I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as a PF coach. This is my fourth year judging/coaching PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.
- If second rebuttal frontlines their case, first summary must extend defense. However, if second rebuttal just responds to the opposing case, first summary is not required to extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.
- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).
-I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.
- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving frontlining delinks for summary is fine with me.
-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.
- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.
- Speed is okay but spreading is not.
- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.
- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on, but I really really don't want to because I hate voting on theory. PLEASE TRIGGER WARN YOUR CASES AND/OR ASK YOUR OPPONENTS IF THEY READ SENSITIVE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE ROUND BEGINNING TO AVOID TRIGGERING PEOPLE AND THEN RE-LITIGATING THE TRAUMA FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. If you care about protecting survivors, you will ask before the round if a case has sensitive material. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.
- I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.
- I like off-time roadmaps, but BE BRIEF.
The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.
Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you.
I am a former PF debater that has judged tournaments for 2+ years.
I expect all varsity debaters to be able to run their own round (i.e. keep track of opponent's speech and prep time, carding).
Don't spread because I judge based on the arguments I hear and understand.
I will occasionally ask for cards after the round if there has been a clash of evidence.
I am competed internationally in WSD and am the WSD State Champion in Texas and the 3rd and 2nd national speaker in WSD consecutively. I also have done one year of British Parliamentary. Beyond the scope of that, I have competed in PF, Congress, and Extemp. I have judged a substantial amount of rounds in WSD/PF in both local, national, and intl. tournaments.
My paradigms for PF:
I do not intervene in the construction of arguments. I will not give you credit for your what you don't say, and I also will not discredit you for what your opponents do not say. The only "exception" to this is if at the very end of the debate neither team has properly weighed their arguments and I have to come to a conclusion due to an insufficiency of content. That being said I think it is very important that you weigh your arguments.
Evidence is very important. I will judge the quality of the evidence and its supportiveness for your arguments. By that same token, I find the logical reasoning behind your arguments to be very important as well. I.e do not allow your evidence to become the extent of your analysis/argument. A larger quantity of evidence with poor analysis will not win you the debate.
Teams should be consistently strong in the latter half of the debate. Carrying arguments/evidence and engaging with the core tensions in the debate. I prefer a big picture analysis as the debate closes, and a more line by line approach in the upper half of the debate (rebuttals).
It is not bad to be assertive, but that is distinct from being aggressive. Understand the distinction between those two things.
Don't spread. It's not that I can't follow you on the flow. I just have a massive disdain for it :).
Hello! I did PF for four years on the local Minnesota and national circuit. I'm not a coach, so I am not familiar with topic-specific terminology.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org. Feel free to reach out if there's anything I can do to make the round better for you or if you have questions. Also, please add me to your email chains :)
tldr: I am a traditional flow judge. I highly value accessibility and expect all debaters to make sure their opponents are not excluded from the debate.
- Philosophy: Debate is an art. Judge adaptation is a skill, but judges should also allow students room for self-expression and adapt to differing styles. All styles of debate are equally valid.
- Be nice and respectful! Please refrain from laughing at your opponents, yelling in cross, and slamming tables. You and your opponents are people first and debaters second.
- If your case contains triggering material: read a content warning and have an alternate case ready. Failure to do so will cap your speaks at 27. I realize this is harsh, but accessibility and safety are essential. If I feel you are making the round unsafe for your opponents, I will end the round and award your opponents the win.
- Please don't be offensive. If you do, I will vote you down, give you low speaks, and contact your coach.
- Warrants are everything! Please don't forget to explain the why of your arguments (especially in the second half of the round!!)
- I'm really not a fan of spreading because I find it exclusionary. I won't outright vote you down if you spread but I will be sympathetic if your opponents can't get to everything.
- With that being said, I do not have a problem with speed. I actually prefer faster-paced debates so as long as you don't have to send a speech doc, we're good.
- If your opponents are going too fast, loudly say "clear." If your opponents say clear, slow down!
- I'm also not a fan of paraphrasing. I won't drop you because of it, but again, I'll be more sympathetic to your opponents if they can't address every card you read.
- I rarely call for evidence so its on you to check your opponent's ethics.
- If your evidence is called and you're paraphrasing, you need to present a cut card and the paraphrased snippet you read.
- If I find out you're misrepresenting evidence I'll more than likely vote you down on that alone.
- Please make sure to signpost!
- Extend the warrants (cause/why the impact happens) along with your impacts
- Numbering your responses will boost your speaks
- Weigh! Specifically, you should explain why the framework means we have to prefer your case and why we shouldn't prefer your opponent's
- I am generally of the opinion that progressive arguments are good for debate when they make sense and serve a purpose. I'll give an example. If you're running a K to increase awareness about LGBTQ+ issues, great! If you're running a counterplan to confuse your opponents, not so great. Basically, care about the issues you're debating and don't exclude people.
- I don't know the specific terms/language associated with progressive debate.
- If your opponents are running progressive arguments and you're not familiar with progressive debate, don't worry! Just try to respond to it the same way you would any other argument: use your logic and don't worry about using the right terms. I'll be sympathetic if you're in this position.
- If your opponents are abusive in round and you don't know how to respond with a shell/other form of progressive argumentation, please still call the abuse out however you like (just no easter eggs). I'll still vote on it!
Assistant Director of Forensics - Delbarton School (2020 - present)
Director of Debate - Duchesne Academy (2017-2020)
Marist '16// Rice University '20
Important changes for 2020-21 Season:
Email Chains: 1st speaker of the 1st speaking team should start an email chain as soon as you get into the Zoom/NSDA room. Teams need to send their full case docs and cards by the end of their constructive speeches. Additionally, teams need to send all new evidence read in rebuttal immediately after rebuttal speeches. Ideally, no one should need to ask to take prep to view or call for evidence. Add me to the email chain using BOTH email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
The subject should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team (side/order) v Team (side/order) .
Evidence - While I prefer debaters read card text, I'm okay with paraphrasing. However, I require you to cut cards for all evidence referenced in the round. These are properly cut cards (Thank you Christian Vasquez for the link). If you don't cut cards then you might want to consider striking me. IF YOUR CARD ISN'T CUT AND I CALL FOR IT, I WON'T CONSIDER IT. Cut cards promote better research and debate ethics. I understand fitting sources into speeches, but lying about what your evidence says ruins the ethos of the round and cheats everyone of the educational and competitive components of this activity. And I'm tired of calling for evidence that contradicts the tag read in the round.
Main PF Paradigm:
1.) I look at the round through an offense/defense paradigm. Ultimately, offense wins debates. It will be hard to just win off just terminal defense. On my flow, offense requires a link/warrant, an impact, and frontlining. Miss one and it will be harder for me to flow your offense.
2.) Speeches must build off of each other. It’s not enough to just read some offense or defense in one speech and only extend it at the very end in the Final Focus. Rebuttals need to be line-by-line with 2nd rebuttals frontlining major turns for at least 30-60 seconds. Any offense or defense you want me to look at on my flow needs to be cleanly extended, especially in the Summary and the Final Focus.
3.) Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other. I don't care about the 1st speaking team disadvantage in summary because there are other advantages in the round. You should extend defense in first summary and similar offense.
4.) Please weigh. It makes it a lot easier to evaluate the round if you warrant what I should look to first. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Strength of link is a fake term for probability. Clarity of impact is not real weighing.
5.) I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done a lot of research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything you have me flow (tech over truth). The only times I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) would be when the args/examples presented are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, anything ridiculous like "extinction/terrorism good," or when I know a piece of evidence being read is completely misrepresented. I will call for evidence if debaters ask me to or if I find it important in my decision. Cards should be properly cut (refer to the message at the top).
Also, it's up to the debaters in the round to call each other out and issue a formal evidence ethics challenge if I don't call for a card.
6.) I will (almost) always disclose. Unless it's Nationals, I will always disclose and give an RFD. I'm also open to questions from debaters after the round. Once debaters become rude or their coaches get involved, then I'll stop my post-round discussion.
7.) I'm 100% fine with accommodations. Increasing accessibility is important. Just communicate what you need before the round. Opponents will also receive the same benefits. If you are an opposing team that disagrees with reasonable accommodations, get over it and debate.
Plans/CPs/DAs - I've always been okay with “specific” plans, “pseudo” CPs, and DAs because I used them during my debate career. Just make sure you "fit" them within PF and the resolution. Debaters who complain about the rules of PF debate when it comes to plans and CPs – get over it and debate.
Kritics - I'm okay with the generic K's people try to run (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism, Securitization, etc.) but I am not familiar with high theory (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).
Theory - Theory is the highest layer of argumentation, so I'll evaluate it as such. I am okay with just a paragraph or a full shell. For me to extend your theory argument, you need to read it as soon as the abuse occurs. Additionally, theory needs to be extended throughout the debate. Otherwise, it could become disingenuous and opponents are free to use the drop as a way to win time skew. Evidence of abuse is also needed for theory (especially disclosure related shells).
1.) Preflow before the round otherwise -0.3 speaker points.
2.) Crossfires - It's usually not important to my ballot and I don't flow them. I think it’s more for y'all to clarify your args with each other. If something significant is said in cross-fire, then bring up immediately in the next speech to make it binding. Also, be nice to each other.
3.) Speed - I am okay if you go fast (7ish/10), so long as you are clear. I reserve the right to ask for a speech doc if you go too fast.
4.) Speaker points - Debate is an educational activity that requires good use of evidence, so I lean more towards analysis and strategy instead of persuasiveness. Scale from 27-30 with everyone starting at a 27. If you get below a 25, you did something unethical in the round. Don't expect a 30 just because you won the round.
Questions? Ask before the round
I am a parent judge, although I did compete in forensics competitions in high school.
My Speaking Style Preferences are as follows:
I appreciate assertiveness when presenting arguments and debating, but only when that assertiveness does not get in the way of a civil and professional demeanor.
Make sure to speak clearly and at an understandable pace. I will not be able to judge you on arguments that I can’t understand when they’re presented.
Also make sure you stick to your time limits, and please don’t go too far over since that puts the opponents at a disadvantage.
As for argumentation:
The team that is able to support their contentions with strong logic and good evidence while effectively refuting their opponents' case will win the round.
If you want me to vote on an argument, make sure to carry it through your speeches so that I can follow it through the debate, I cannot judge you on arguments I cannot follow.
Your arguments should be topical, I will not vote on arguments which are not connected to the topic.
As a final note,
I know that all debaters have prepared themselves extensively, which I very much appreciate. Make sure to remember that the goal of debate is to learn and grow as well as have fun. Good luck!
- I'll probably be flowing on paper or excel.
- No spreading. Not only will I not understand what you're saying and thus not evaluate your arguments but I'll also dock speaker points. Especially since this is online, when it's even harder to hear.
- No off-time roadmaps. Your time starts when you start speaking (after asking if everyone is ready).
- Logic > Evidence
- That said, if your opponents call for evidence, be ready to paste a link to it in the chat relatively quickly. You should organize your prep such that you're able to ctrl+f for the card, so if you take more than a few minutes to find evidence I may just discard it.
- If I realize that you have purposefully misrepresented your evidence, I will drop you no matter if you're winning the rest of the debate. If you accidentally misquote your evidence that is OK as long as you correct yourself before it is brought to my attention by your opponents.
- I'll be timing your speeches/cross. If your time runs out while you're speaking, you can finish your sentence or have a grace period of 10 seconds, whichever comes first.
- Don't have new contentions in rebuttal.
- 2nd rebuttal should take some time to frontline 1st rebuttal
- No new arguments. Turns are OK
- I frown on new evidence especially in 2nd summary
- Weighing is important!!
- Don't interrupt eachother in cross, but also don't take too long to answer a question.
- This is my favorite part of debate so I will flow it. But make sure to bring up any important points/concessions that were made in your next speeches as well.
Remember to have fun!
It is important to note a few things-
One, that I have no formal experience in competitive debate.
Two, you will need to read at a slow to normal pace.
Three, I appreciate clarity and straightforwardness in the delivery of your arguments. I should know what you are arguing, with clear evidence and examples. Tell me why your impact matters! Practically speaking, impact is just as, if not more important than implications.
Four, no ism's and by that I mean I expect no racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, islamophobia, antisemitism...or any others I may not have mentioned.
My back round is in history and philosophy, in my undergraduate studies I completed an Honors Thesis which is now published.
Keep in mind-
"I have an approximate knowledge of many things"
I am genuinely excited to see what you all bring to the table and to gain experience in judging!
I am tech.
I understand prog.
send speech docs and cards to email@example.com
no CW/TW (for arguments that need it) means u get 25 speaks max
say ratio in crossfire for 30 speaks
I am a new parent judge. Please speak slowly and articulate your points. Weigh throughout your speeches and minimize the debate jargon.
TLDR: Standard FYO flow judge, tech>truth, must respond to offense in the next speech (lenient to dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal), warranting is essential, speed must be justified by content, don't be harmful to the debate space, weigh comparatively, have ev at the ready and don't misconstrue, don't read dedev
- For email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Paradise Valley '21 | ASU '25
Did PF all 4 years at Paradise Valley in Arizona (2017-2021), competed at local level first 3 years and almost exclusively national circuit senior year, got to a couple bid rounds, and qualled to NDCA. I was also captain senior year.
**** Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - You will get an L20 for this****
- Debate is a game, win the flow
- Collapse and weigh to clean up the debate; too many people try to win every part of the flow and it almost always hurts them because they don't give themselves the time to do the comparative analysis.
- Weighing goes a long way - as a judge I have to decide who's case is truer/more impactful - do the work for me so I do not have to intervene
- SELF TIME
- If something is dropped, call it out, it's not my job to call it out for you. Dropped evidence has 100% strength of link ONLY if you extend and flesh out the warranting for it.
- You HAVE to frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal (you SHOULD frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal but if opps dump turns on you there's only so much you can do)
- Extend in every speech after rebuttal (Don't be blippy do real extensions - If I absolutely feel there is no way to vote at all because no one extends I either defer to the NEG on policy change topics, or the 1st speaking team on "on balance" topics, etc.)
- Extending through ink is the same thing as conceding your arg
- Include my boy Raghav Warrier's article (Inflation: Consumers Consider Cryptocurrency | National Review) in your speech and I'll give u 30s
- If you run ANY form of argument that potentially may make your opps uncomfortable, you MUST use get ALL members' approval before the round. Ex: Use an anonymous Google Form prior to the round, make all of us fill it out, and if even one person opts out, you do not run the argument
- If you do NOT use content warnings on args that obviously warrant it, I already am inclined to vote for your opps
- Weighing isn't: "We outweigh on magnitude because it's more people" (nah fam i could care less if u don't do the in-depth comparative)
- Prereqs are my favorite type of weighing because it is the easiest to do the actual comparative
- If yall go for the same type of weighing, then explain why your weighing is more important. Ex: If both teams try to prereq explain why your prereq happens first or subsumes their prereq
- If you have the same impact, please please prioritize any type of weighing EXCEPT magnitude. Ex: If both teams impact extinction, win probability or TF (I genuinely don't know why people do magnitude/severity weighing when it's the same argument)
- The first time you weigh should most definitely not be in final. Personally, I've done weighing sometimes as early as first rebuttal (I obviously don't expect this, but make sure it starts in summary)
- Don't say you have 100% strength of link, you literally only have to say they dropped it lol
- Likely won't even be paying attention, cx is for you
- If something relevant comes up, bring it up in a later speech
- Skipping grand for a min of prep is chill if both teams agree
- Likely won't ever call for cards unless you tell me to
- If I read the card and it is misconstrued it will not bode well for you (PF evidence ethics is dog so gotta enforce it somehow)
- If you have clashing empirics/evidences, tell me why I prefer your evidence -- otherwise I will call for both of them and intervene towards which one I agree with more (I may call cards anyways just to be curious and see who's evidence is rly better, but won't factor that unless you give me a reason to)
- I won't start prep when looking for cards if you find it within reasonable time, otherwise I will
- Don't just send a link and just tell your opponents to ctrl + F, its lazy, you should be cutting the card for them
- Usually high speaks, with a base of 27, but you have to earn a 30
- If you earn lower than a 27, you likely did something unethical in the round.
- Please, please, PLEASE do not go faster than you should be. Too many people try to speak fast so they can sneak responses in and then collapse on them(this is lowkey abusive, just don't do it). Speed is fine, but I should be able to understand it, and it should not sacrifice your clarity
- Avoid it if you can, because I feel that too much nowadays real issues are tokenized for the sake of a ballot. However, theory can be a valuable asset in shining on a light on real issues, so use it only if you actually are trying to promote awareness about the issue you talk about.
- I personally almost never hit theory on the circuit, so make sure you explain it as well as you can. This also means don't be mad if u get screwed after running theory lol
- For theory and theory only, it'll be truth>tech, otherwise there is rly not any point in running it if u cant logically argue it
- Never done this event, and don't know too much about the structure, so treat me like a lay for the most part
- I can handle speed, but it has to be justified by content, meaning don't spread unless every additional word you say helps you (SEND SPEECH DOCS)
- If you wanna know how I flow, read the PF section
- I'll pretty much always disclose
- If you read stupid stuff like extinction good, I have a VERY low threshold for defense on it (this is literally fake PF)
- If you read like 40 turns in rebuttal and flat out response dump, I feel that is incredibly abusive and not at all inclusive to small schools who can't get the same prep (speaking from the perspective of a one entry school), so I will allow your opps to respond to them very late
- TKO rule applies
- If you find a creative way to incorporate sports references or jokes(have to be funny lol) in your speeches you get +0.5 speaks
- Don't postround me, but feel free to ask questions about my RFD
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.
I'm a parent judge who likes logical arguments, and calm speaking. Be respectful throughout the round. If you send me your cases or add me to an email chain, +1 speaker points.
Debated PF for Lakeville. I study Stats and Data Science at Wisconsin and coach at Seven Lakes.
I’ll do my best to make the correct technical decision in every round. Feel free to contact/post round if you disagree with my decision.
I vastly prefer email chains to google docs - email@example.com
Read content warnings. Do not use expletives without a content warning.
Crossfire is bad. It is not binding, and I generally don't listen. Please use this time to ask legitimate clarifying questions.
I flow extensions and actually care about them being good.
Have cards. If I have to sift through a random article to find out what part of it you're talking about I'm likely to just pretend the argument is an analytic.
Warrants need to exist.
Frontline in second rebuttal.
Defense isn’t sticky. Some very rare exceptions.
Speed is fine. However, reading very quickly from paraphrased docs will tank your speaks and annoy me, if you intend on going fast the least you can do is read from cut cards. "Direct quotes" aren't cut cards.
Collapse to as few arguments as possible.
Voting where debaters tell me to vote >>> Voting where I personally think you messed up
I prefer debaters who call out their opponent’s mistakes.
If everyone is making mistakes, I generally try to give each side some risk of offense and attempt to vote off of clash/defense/weighing.
Given no other option I presume neg unless told otherwise.
How I resolve weighing
Absent comparison by debaters themselves:
I value well-warranted prereq, short circuit, and link-in arguments most.
For obvious reasons I prefer conceded, warranted, and comparative weighing.
I generally prefer weighing introduced earlier in the round.
I vote off the flow but it’s likely I don’t know the nuances of your specific category so break stuff down for me.
I would honestly prefer to judge a substance round. This being said:
I will vote for any argument you win and weigh. I’ve personally debated theory a lot more than Ks. Frivolous theory and tricks are usually bad and my threshold for responses is pretty low.
I personally think that disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. In high school I read from cut cards in rebuttal, and open sourced disclosed. This doesn’t mean I will hack for these arguments.
RVI debates are annoying. You shouldn't win for being fair, but you should win if you sufficiently prove that the interp is net bad. Feel free to argue about this in round.
These people taught me debate:
Flex prep, skipping grand, off time road maps, informal clothing, etc. is chill.
I reserve the right to drop you for making the space unsafe.
I also reserve the right to drop you for blatantly violating NSDA or tournament rules. Fabricating or egregiously misrepresenting evidence is basically always an instant loss.
-Please please please number your responses in rebuttal. Like, first .... second.... third... and so on. My fingers can only type so fast and I don't wanna miss anything.
-Extend offense pls, I wont do it for you
-Weigh like the W depends on it, because it does
-Crossfire is for you, it means nothing for how I evaluate a round (unless it comes up in speech ofc) I would leave the room for it if I could
-If you don't want me to flow I won't. Lay debate is a dying art and I want to be its rembrandt.
- Don't read responses you don't understand. overreliance on big blockfiles is slowly eroding at any educational value this activity has
The rest is ripped mostly from Sharan Sawlani, I received all my debate knowledge from his goated brain so everything applies.
I debated for Cypress Bay High School in Weston, Florida for 4 years, all of which in Public Forum (2016-2020). I'm currently a sophomore at duke.
a couple things:
- Please don’t shake my hand. I'm sick rn
- The closer your speaking style is to oratory, the closer you are to a 30. In terms of speaking, treat me like I'm a parent, I beg you. I can keep up with speed but every time I do it withers away at my soul its not fun
- First summary should extend defense if second rebuttal frontlined the argument. I think it is strategic for second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.
- 3 min summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.
- Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated. Jokes and puns are highly encouraged.
- Reading theory as a cheap way to win a round is whack. Don't read it unless there's an actual violation. With that being said, I'll listen to just about any argument as long as it's explained well AND relates to the topic OR spreads meaningful discourse. I'm not familiar with K literature (I am with the argumentation tho), so keep in mind that if I don't understand the argument you're trying to make by the end of the round, it's going to be difficult to vote for it. If I find that the argument is excessively abusive or exclusionary (looking at you, friv theory people) you will lose.
- Apparently this needs to be clarified now but regardless of speaking order, in the rare situation where there is no offense on either side at the end of the round I will presume neg.
Pog: Collapse, weigh, signpost, funny, tom brady slander, golf, the color green.
Dog: being mean, friv theory, partial quads, (i dont know what partial quads are), tom brady, being mean.
******If both sides agree to settle the debate with a mutually agreed upon test/competition of strategy or skill, I will not intervene.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Note for Glenbrooks
Hi LDers! I will be judging you. That being said, I have only ever debated in PF and I am a PF judge. That means that I cannot judge advanced theory or spreading. If you don't read my paradigm and run a progressive argument and leave me sitting there attempting to flow and wondering what the heck is going on, that's on you! That being said, I've always loved LD and I'm excited to judge y'all. Most everything else in my paradigm still applies to you, so read through it.
Hi! I'm Josephine (she/her/hers). I debated for four years for Hunter and graduated in 2021 — I'm taking a gap year before I start college at Columbia University with a dual BA at Sciences Po. I was my team's captain as a senior and, although I took a step back from debating due to virtual tournaments/college apps, I'm familiar with current circuit norms and argumentation. You can treat me as a flow judge, but that doesn't mean that you should tell me to "just extend" an argument or spread.
You can win my ballot with the two Ws: Warranting and Weighing. Be nice.
Please signpost and weigh. I'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best. If you want my ballot, weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more!
I'm okay with moderate speed. If I can’t make out what you are saying I’ll say “clear” twice.
I am tech over truth, but if you are racist/sexist/etc i will drop you with low speaks. That also means that you NEED to use content warnings if you're discussing a sensitive topic. And, this should go without saying, but respect pronouns.
Speaks start at a 28 and go up/down from there.
Please, please, please warrant — tell me WHY what you're saying is true, even if so-and-so from the Brooking Institute says it's true!
Don't be mean in cross — that doesn't make it a fun round for anyone.
PF: Write my ballot for me in the final focus! everything in FF should be in summary. All offense for me to vote needs to be in the second half of the round.
You need to extend a clear link chain with warrants and impacts if you want me to vote on it. You would be surprised how many teams neglect to do this.
If you want me to vote on a turn, it needs to be given the same care and attention as case offense. What that means: your links need to be extended, you need a clear and warranted impact, and you need to weigh that impact. I will not vote on a turn that is nebulous or not implicated. That being said, I have nothing against voting off a turn (I personally loved running turns) — just run it well.
- I will raise my hand once you're at time and stop flowing after a ~5 second buffer
I love cool and innovative strategies — run them in front of me!
I’m fine with theory if it checks back for actual abuse BUT I am not too familiar with progressive arguments (I personally never ran them). Therefore, if you’re trying something progressive, run it in paragraph form, don’t spread, and explain it clearly.
LD: if neither side has offense at the end of the round i will presume neg, but please don't make me presume anything (please extend!). PF: I'll presume first-speaking team.
Wear whatever makes you comfy.
Try to make me laugh! I show all my emotions on my face so you will know if you say something funny.
Zoë Kaufmann legit taught me everything I know about debate so if you want to learn more about my philosophy, you can check out her paradigm here. You can assume that anything in it also goes for me.
Have fun! And if you ever want to chat about debate or life, feel free to reach out via email, Facebook Messenger, or Instagram (@j0sephinefrancis). I know as well as anyone that debate can be stressful and scary but I am here for you and so proud of all of you! Instead of spending your last few minutes before your round stress-prepping, watch this!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwcJsBYL3o
I have no background in high school or college debate, but I have been a practicing attorney for more than 30 years and have been judging PF debates for 6 years.
I am a great believer in the “citizen judge” roots of Public Forum. The debater’s job is to persuade the man on the street, with no background as to the resolution of the month, that pro or con should win. Thus, clarity and focus are paramount. Your job is to persuade, not confuse, me. Well-structured arguments and effectively utilized evidence are key, but so are articulation, modulation, and engagement. A glance up from your laptop from time to time can work wonders, as can staying in the Zoom frame in a well-lighted room.
I do flow arguments, but not in a very technical way. A dropped argument will only count against you if it is material to your overall presentation and not offset by more meritorious arguments that make it through Final Focus.
Spreading and the pointless acceleration of pacing it engenders are strongly discouraged. You should choose your arguments carefully and deliver them at a pace, and with an energy and focus, that are designed to persuade.
Use your evidence fairly and judiciously. Do not overstate its significance or twist its meaning beyond recognition. I will only ask to see your card if the outcome of a round turns on an evidentiary dispute, but, if it comes to this, you want to be confident that your card can be read as presented. Also, feel free to request your opponent's cards, but do so sparingly and only when necessary to dispute a material contention or buttress a key argument.
Unfortunately, only one team can win; that’s the way it is in real life and in every courtroom I have ever appeared, so try to roll with the punches.
Most importantly, have fun. Few things are as satisfying as a hard-fought win; or as motivating (for the next round) as a too-close-to-call loss.
I will be happy to judge for a third season. English is my second language therefore my preferred rate on delivery is typical conversational speed with the intent to communicate arguments effectively. The decision on the winner of the round is based on the strengths of the key arguments put forward, the ability to listen and respond to the other team arguments, on persuasiveness of the overall position. I highly value the use of well documented analytical and empirical evidences coming from various credible sources. During the round, I keep a detailed flow and underline the key arguments of each debater's case. Overall, I value a cordial debate atmosphere. Finally, I have great admiration for every single debater's enthusiasm in discussing challenging concepts.
I am a parent judge from a school that practices traditional debate. I am taking copious and structured notes in a flow sheet and will in the end check which arguments are still standing unchallenged. Therefore, I am not a fan of rapid-fire delivery of arguments, but rather appreciate well-structured and evidence-based arguments delivered at a moderate pace. I trust that your evidence is from well-reputed sources and will not call for cards during the round, but will rather leave the job of examining cards to the opposing team. I also expect that you keep your own time. On speaker points, I tend to give higher points for debaters who provide not only the best evidence to support their arguments, but that also make a compelling presentation effort (e.g., eye contact, slowing down to make impact points, grouping and weighing in final speeches).
I competed in PF for four years, and this is my second year judging. I am not very partial to a specific style of debating, but there are a few things you should make sure that you do in a round.
- Provide evidence for everything you say that is not common sense. You are not an expert, so your analysis of a situation is interesting but counts for nothing in the round. If your opponent is making baseless claims, you need to point that out. It does not need to be long-winded, but I do need you to recognize that evidence has or has not been used.
- When two pieces of evidence are being used against each other, give me some way to measure the validity of your information over your opponents. If you continue to repeat your evidence and tell me that I should prefer it, there should be strong reasoning behind that claim.
- Weigh the round as you go. It is ok to have to drop an argument or to admit that your opponent has won a certain point. You can still win the round if you have won on something that is of greater weight for the topic.
- I absolutely love questioning periods. Use that time wisely and stop wasting it with formalities. Be sure that if something is said in crossfire, then you mention it in a speech later if you want it to be weighed in the decision.
- In terms of your speaking style and delivery, keep in mind that we do this activity largely in order to better develop our speaking skills. Being the better speaker in the round goes a long way on my ballot. Fast-paced speaking and style are not mutually exclusive but make sure that you can be understood.
Experience: 4 years of public forum, 4 years of NFA-LD (one-person policy debate), and 2 years of coaching NFA-LD.
I am still in the process of formatting my paradigm for the high school circuit, so please excuse its brevity.
I feel that debate should reward hard work. I will call for cards at the end of the round, and my ballot and speaker points will be used to reward the team with a greater quality and quantity of evidence.
I prefer substantive arguments and default to a logical-decision maker paradigm. I am rarely persuaded by theory arguments that are not topicality or shells that do not have real implications for the solvency of the affirmative.
You should engage in evidence and impact comparison. Impact comparison should be a full exploration of the link, internal link, and impact card to produce a full analysis of the probability, timeframe, and magnitude.
Speed is not an issue for me as long as it is reciprocal and not exclusive.
Hey! My name is Sam Padmanabhan and I competed in speech and debate in high school. My main event was Extemp Speaking but I competed in Oratory, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate. I have a working knowledge of policy and LD as well. I'm a second-year out.
General Debate Things
- Evidence ethics is super important. Don't fabricate or misrepresent evidence
- Be respectful at all times. Any language or arguments that is/are hurtful or hateful (ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.) will get you the 20 L or bottom rank.
- PF/LD --> Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
- Have fun! Debate should be fun :)
LD (never competed but I have a working knowledge of LD and I've judged it a bit so here are some of my preferences)
- I'm good with speed
- I enjoy a good theory debate but make sure to prove the violation and the interpretation (just spamming buzzwords is not enough here)
- I'm good with Ks as well but make sure the K links in with the Aff (see above parentheses)
- Tech over truth. I'm more flow than lay but persuasiveness is still important
- Don't extend through the ink
- I won't call for cards unless explicitly asked to in round or if there is a major controversy over evidence (avoid these problems by maintaining evidence ethics)
- Speed is fine but if I can't understand you, I will say slow or clear
- Signposting is a must
- Give me clear voters and make sure you weigh
- Smart analytics + good evidence >>> just evidence
- I need to see direct clash
- The warrant level debate is key
- Notes on Progressive Argumentation: My thoughts on progressive argumentation have really changed over the years. I do see the importance for it in the debate space and thus, if progressive arguments (K's, Theory, CPs, etc.) are run, I will evaluate them. In PF, I don't enjoy seeing progressive args as much but I will still evaluate. That being said, please don't use progressive args purely as a tactical move (e.g. running an Orientalism K but not being Asian, such behavior will result in the L and the lowest speaks possible at the tournament). In order to get me to properly evaluate progressive args, you need to prove the violation and the interps --> as long as they are both clear, I'm willing to listen and evaluate.
- Top ranks will always go to the students who move the debate forward
- Speeches: quality over quantity
- Presentation is important but argumentation is more important
- I rank POs
- I need to see clash. People often mischaracterize Congress as a speech event; this is not true. Congress is debate so I need to see clash, refutation, clear interaction between arguments
If you have any questions, need to add me to an email chain, or missed it above, here's my email: firstname.lastname@example.org
I have judged PF for a few years.
Be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire, and don't make bigoted arguments
I will flow your speeches, but I expect you to call out if your opponent dropped an argument, has incorrect logic/ facts etc.,
Speed: If I cannot understand/flow it, it does not count i.e., I favor normal speech speed , quality arguments vs spreading/quantity.
Cross: Raise items in speech if you want me to flow it and use it in my decision.
Clearly identify your arguments, warrants, highlight clash, weigh, identify voting issues and why you should win the debate
Generally, I will call for cards only if asked, or if my decision rests on a card. Don't use that as an excuse to misrepresent cards.
Theory? Please don't!
Lastly, have fun!
I value analysis in a debate with supporting facts. It is also important how you deliver the facts. A good debate is a combination of facts, arguments and delivery. I also equally discourage made-up facts. You need to show the credible sources for your facts.
Hi everyone! I have 20 years of judging & coaching experience, and while I spend the majority of my time on the interp side of speech & debate, I also enjoy judging Congress and PF now and then.
The best way to win my ballot is to be a good community member and a respectful debate opponent. I believe that you can make strong, compelling arguments without being rude, snarky, or condescending to your opponent. I am all for clash (I look forward to it) just be a respectful opponent.
You winning my ballot is really up to you, not me. Do your research, make strong arguments, and present them in a compelling manner. I appreciate a clear structure, roadmaps, and signposting.
I don't love the crazy fast talk. I would much rather you make solid, clear arguments on the most important points then list off at lightning speed everything you have read about the topic.
Tell me why should win the round, be specific, and make it about what YOU did in the debate. Of course, you can mention the errors of your opponent, but please do not tell me "our opponents didn't respond" when they clearly did. No tricks, no gimmicks, no trying to pull a fast one.
Finally, stick to the debate topic. You will NOT win my ballot if you are running a wacky case that has nothing to do with the actual topic, I find that to be a complete lack of respect for the activity.
Public Form was originally designed with the framework that any reasonably educated lay person could follow an argument, weigh the evidence, and judge which side had greater merit. This is the precise premise from which I, as a former high school history teacher, will listen to your round and judge.
I will base my decision on the following 3 criteria:
1) Speech: Speaking slowly and clearly is critical. If you speak much too rapidly or in monotone, it’s hard to understand what you are saying, so it will not matter in the end how good your arguments are. Strive to enunciate, be articulate, and modulate your voice. Keep me engaged and listening.
2) Evidence: Your arguments should be easy to follow, logical, and practical. You should organize your evidence so that similar arguments are grouped together. It helps if you enumerate the arguments.
3) Decorum and Civility: Show respect to your opponent. Disagreements should never be disrespectful nor personal. Maintain a courteous, calm, and professional attitude and demeanor.
Remember that you are addressing and making a pitch to an informed and engaged citizen, not a professional speech and debate judge.
I am a parent judge, I have difficulty understanding some jargon so please send me cases @ email@example.com if possible before the round, this will benefit your speaks
I am a lay judge, here are some guidelines for success:
1) Do not speak fast, the trade off of covering less and me understanding more will always do you better (speaks and chance of winning), and please attempt to remove as much jargon as possible. Also do not flood me with nuance.
2) Just because I am a lay does not mean you can forget about warrants. If you want me to buy an argument, I need to know why it is true, on all levels of responses not just your case. Do not just make claims and expect me to buy it.
3) Handle your own time and prep. Create a way of evidence sharing before the round start time and add me to whatever the two teams decide, a google doc, or email chain.
4) Be respectful to me and your opponents, any form of inappropriate behavior will result in an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I can give you.
Go slow and be comparative
Stay away from turns
Second Rebuttal has to frontline
Again go slow and make this easy for me
Collapse hard and show me what you want me to vote on
If you are going to weigh, do not use jargon and make sure it is comparative
Do not be abusive and make new responses in second summary, my son has complained enough about other teams who do it, that I can spot it.
Collapse even further, keep speed down
Make the round super easy for me, show me every step for why you deserve my ballot
Again no new responses that were not in Summary
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.
1. Speak slowly and clearly. If you speak too fast I won't be able to understand what you are saying.
2. Speak in coherent sentences. Please avoid words such as "like" and "um."
3. Frame your arguments in a logical flow. Don't make scattered points and expect me to put them together.
4. Be courteous, polite and respectful to your opponents. Being condescending or arrogant will not be viewed favorably.
I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)
If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.
NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and/or throw my pen if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM
I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary. Ask me questions!
Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?
LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM
For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a dcebater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.
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.
I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and currently attend Pomona. I went to TOC a few times and reached finals my senior year. I graduated in 2017. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org -- put me on the email chain!
TLDR; tech > truth, please weigh, be nice to your opponent!
I’ll vote on anything as long as it is warranted. Although I debated a certain way, I would much rather see you do what you do best than to try to adapt to what you think I want. I’ll try to evaluate the round in the way I think the debaters see it, so I’ll do my best to avoid defaulting either way on any particular issue. My biggest preference is just for intelligent well-thought out arguments, whether that's a kritik, a plan aff or a framework. That said, here are my preferences:
- Please please please do not be late :(
- Full disclosure: if you send me your Aff, I'm probably just gonna back flow it later and zone out during the AC . So if you're extemping things in the aff (idrk why people do this...if ur opponent will have a hard time flowing, I will too) give me a heads up
- The biggest reason people lose in front of me is because they do not explicitly weigh. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, PLEASE, OR ELSE I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE. And then we will all be sad. If you do not weigh in your speech, and then you lose, that is on you.
- Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves your computer or when you email your opponent
- I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
- I reserve the right to vote for arguments that I don’t understand/that are not warranted. Your opponent shouldn’t lose for dropping an incoherent sentence with no justification
- I won’t vote for any responses to arguments that are new in later speeches, even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
- I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
- I’ll time your speech — if you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
- I think embedded clash is good — you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them, but that’s my default
- It's really hard to flow spreading on Zoom. I'll yell clear, but if I have to say it more than a couple of times I am missing arguments you've made and I won't fill in the blanks
- If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them
- I strongly dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them if there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded. Just know your speaks will suffer.
- Slow down for interps/counterinterps
- If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it
- I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy fw preclusion arguments
- Please weigh
- I think people think I don't like Ks?? This is not true. Kritiks, run well, are one of my favorite kinds of arguments. I'm pretty familiar with most K lit, with the exception of POMO stuff, so please go slower if you’re reading something super dense. If I have no idea what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you. Concrete examples are always good.
- My defaults for kritiks are the same as other positions, which is: please weigh, and please be explicit with interactions. Don't expect me to know what arguments your position takes out without an explicit implication. (I.e. you have to say, this takes out theory, and why).
Things that will get you high speaks
- Innovative and interesting arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
- Good strategies
- Using CX effectively
- High argument quality
- Good overviews/crystallization
- Good case debate — please don't drop the aff!!!!
Things that will get you low speaks:
- not disclosing
- being shifty
- lots of spikes/blippy arguments
- super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
- clearly not understanding your own positions
- being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude and go slower so that the round is educational for everyone
- academic dishonesty
Hi PF! I have coached LD in various places. I now coach PF for Oakwood. I will definitely try to adapt to PF norms for judging, though my LD background will definitely perform how I perceive rounds, I prefer to do as little work for debaters as possible. The best debaters will write my ballot for me.
IF YOUR TEAM SENDS EVIDENCE DOCS BEFORE EVERY SPEECH, I WILL ADD +1 TO WHATEVER SPEAKS I WAS GOING TO GIVE YOU. <3
- Extra points if you send me your constructive so I can read along - my email is email@example.com
- PF is a completely different format than LD, so don't use my technical preferences as a guideline (i.e. I do not care about disclosure in PF if you're not spreading, which you shouldn't be doing in PF).
- I can flow spreading, but I'd rather not. I'll write your arguments down but you won't get great speaks, and I am much less likely to find your arguments persuasive
- I would highly recommend against reading circuit LD arguments in front of me. I do not think you have the time to execute this arguments effectively in the format. I will intervene against debaters who read circuit LD/policy arguments if I think you are engaging in practices that are bad for the format, especially if you seem to be excluding your opponent.
- Make good arguments.
- I'm probably on the technical side of judges because of my LD background, so be as explicit as possible with things like weighing. Tech > truth but I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted
- Be persuasive!
- I do not understand how the economy works..... if you're using technical economic terms please explain what they mean! And be extra-extra explicit about how you reach your impacts. Examples help.
- There is a trend in PF to read LD/policy type arguments with super long link chains. I tend to find them unpersuasive since the strength of link to your terminal impact is always pretty low, and often some of the links are barely warranted. You can execute this well, but be cautious that the links are well-articulated and that the narrative of your link chain is clear.
- In the absence of clear weighing, I'll default to strength of link
- I find arguments with short link chains most persuasive (e.g. no one has explained the bonds argument on neg well to me)
- the developing world is not a monolith. If you want to read developing world impacts, make them specific -- contextualize to specific countries/impact stories.
PF TOC Update
- I would prefer if you don't read theory. My views are more comprehensively reflected here: https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/ (I don't expect anyone to have read this, unless if a team decides to initiate the type of theory criticized in this article).
- If your opponent miscuts evidence, you can point it out and say I should drop them. If the violation is clear, I will. There's no need to read a theory shell.
- Slow, persuasive, concise speeches are greatly preferred over fast/blippy ones
Do not spread! If you cannot adjust to a conversational pace of delivery please strike me. Updated 12/5/2021
Princeton Classic PF summary.
Please debate at a conversational rate that your grandparents could understand and appreciate. I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.
Quality over quantity.
CX: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponents talk.
If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.
Please collapse the debate in summary and weigh in final focus rather than running the flow.
I appreciate the challenge of arguing before a panel with a community or lay judge. Please make every effort to include me in the debate in out rounds.
Congressional debaters please scroll to the very end of the paradigm to see my judging philosophy for Congress. Summary for LDers arguing at Winter Trophy if you do not have time to scroll down and read my full philosophy. Do not spread, realize as a traditional, lay judge I view LD as a framework debate. This is not policy debate therefore I value warrants over evidence. I will consistently ballot for the debater who establishes the framework and value for the round and clearly links their argumentation to that value. You have a burden to weigh framework for me and clearly warrant, weight and link.
General comments Please do not spread. I will flow the debate. That said do not feel compelled to force attention to every argument in the round. Instead tell me what are the important issues as the debate collapses and warrant your position. Please avoid ever saying flow this point through. Rather than focusing on what your opponent hasn't said focus on what they have said and extend your argument.
I have judged Congressional debate, PF, LD and IEs as a lay judge for 8 years and last season in zoom I judged over 200 rounds of these events at 40+ online tournaments including national qualifiers in five states and Nationals. So I am an experienced lay judge.
That said, at the top of my paradigm is the most important thing for you to take away from my paradigm, speak at a conversational pace. If you need a metric visualize explaining to your grandfather or great-grandfather the most complex concept you have learned in school. PF was developed due to the increasing inaccessibility of policy and unfortunately recently LD. Therefore my expectation is that PF debaters will provide a clear and logical narrative in support of their position on the resolution. In the structure of argumentation I value analytics and warranting over evidence. LD is a debate centered on value and is not policy oriented. Therefore I prioritize framework and consistently ballot for the debater who establishes the value premise and framework for the round, links to that framework and clearly outweighs opponent's value.
Remember, as a lay judge I look for a clear narrative with understandable analysis rather than quantity of evidence. I vote on analysis and warranting rather than evidence. I completely support the efforts for inclusiveness in the debate and speech community. As you will see below that commitment to inclusiveness in debate means your presentation and argumentation should include the broadest audience.
Therefore NO speed k, progressive debate or theory. My experience has been that consistently in rounds I judge conversational paced traditional debate advances.
Please be at the round as instructed in the tournament directions. In order verify functioning technology, to respect the entire community and not delay the tournament I strongly urge you to be early.
I have become concerned with evidence, evidence ethics and evidence exchange in addition to spreading. I work from the assumption that you have cut your evidence ethically. I do not place a great deal of my decision on conflicting evidence. Just give me a warrant. If a debater provides me with an analytic or comparison on a card I will accept it if not rebutted. However if I call for one of your cards you should be concerned. If I find you have cut the card out of context or in a misleading manner that will impact my decision. I find it helpful for summary to begin to collapse the debate rather than run the flow. So provide weighing on voters and an analysis of your narrative of the round.
How I'll evaluate the round:
Please frame the debate for me.
Clearly warrant links
Warrants: I need to understand why and how a claim creates specific impacts. If I don't understand your warrant or if it just doesn't follow I cannot vote for it. Remember reading evidence is not a warrant. Finally have fun. We are engaged in an important intellectual activity here but there's no reason that we can't all have pleasure in exploring these important ideas. Do not spread. I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum or LD debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. If you encounter kritik or theory in a round and I am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF and LD debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.
I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF and LD judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF and LD should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF and LD a more exclusive and inaccessible event.
Quality over quantity.
CX: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponents talk.
If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot. Moreover be certain that you warrant your arguments.
Repeating a card or evidence is not a warrant. A warrant is a logical argument for your claim. I will disregard claims that lack a warrant in my decision. Remember a warrant is not evidence
VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION:
I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.
It’s your job as a debater not just to say a lot of stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with. Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view. If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.
PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.
Congressional debaters. Please understand your burden or obligation during each round of congressional debate. After the first affirmative and negative it is incumbent upon members of Congress to elaborate and extend the debate. I value argument extension and new analysis over reading cards. You should not feel obligated to speak three times in a round. I will always value one effective speech over multiple speeches that do nothing to add or extend the debate. While I very much appreciate and encourage you to enjoy the debate I am not a big fan of off the wall humor. If you feel compelled to inject humor into the round please make certain that it is both appropriate and serves a purpose in your speech. Finally I very much appreciate debaters who accept the responsibility of POing. Therefore an outstanding PO will always be rewarded on my ballot. Moreover I will always rank an outstanding PO above an outstanding in round debater. Further as a community I feel it's incumbent upon us to all participate. Therefore experienced Congressional debaters should strongly consider POing . Notice the adjective outstanding. That is a PO should be fully aware of all parliamentary procedures and rules, have a rapport with the membership in the house or senate, and consistently apply procedures. The best PO is like the best referee in sports we don't notice they're there and the game or debate round flows very smoothly. As the current season unfolds I would like to compliment the participants in Congressional debate in Arizona. The collegial and supportive environment established by the participants is commendable. I will repeat as a frequent judge of Congress in Arizona I've had the opportunity to hear a number of amazing Congressional debaters in round. I fully expect those talented experienced Congressional debaters to make the choice to PO before me. I am often asked by tournament directors to act as a parliamentarian. Therefore my evaluation of the round focuses on how the debaters engage through the rules and procedures. I will repeat for those of you who participate in Congressional debate on the national circuit through zoom and have been very successful in Arizona I would like to see you PO! As the current season unfolds you will find that my evaluation of the round reflects this expectation and hope.
Debated four years (2017-2021) on the national circuit for Montgomery Blair. Read what you want and debate how you want—I'll try my best to adapt to you.
Some specific things:
1) Be nice.
2) Dislike underdeveloped arguments. I will only vote on arguments I understand as they are explained in the round.
3) Time each other and don't steal prep.
4) Cool with post-rounding.
Happy to answer any questions. Best way to contact me is via FB messenger (Eli Qian) or email (edu.eqian at gmail dot com).
Immutable money, infinite frontier, eternal life. #Bitcoin
American Heritage Broward '21
For online debates, add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org. Please send constructives in the email chain at the very minimum. Message me on FB if you have questions.
Debated in PF for four years at American Heritage and graduated in 2021. I stopped debating at the start of my senior year so I'm kinda rusty. I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.
Tech > truth, but the best teams win on both fronts.
- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.
- I will default first on presumption, but you can make the argument that presumption flows neg.
- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.
- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.
- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but I hate bad weighing. Avoid:
1. Weighing that is not comparative
2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments
3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and probability weighing is usually defense that should've been read in rebuttal
4. New weighing in second final focus. I may still evaluate it if there's no other weighing in the round, but not too heavily.
- I will call for evidence if it's contested and key to my decision. I may also call for it if I'm personally interested to see what it says but in this instance it would have no effect on the decision. I generally tend to believe that reading evidence promotes intervention.
- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will probably drop the evidence unless there's very good warranting.
- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.
- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.
- I have an ok understanding of theory, but I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K.
- I tend to believe disclosure and paraphrasing are good.
- I usually prefer to judge debates about the topic instead of something like paraphrasing, disclosure, or spec theory. However, I will still do my best to fairly evaluate these arguments despite my personal qualms of strong theory debaters bulldozing inexperienced teams. I may not reward speaks based on it, but I definitely don't intervene.
- You can respond to first constructive in the second constructive.
- Humor’s great, especially sarcasm
- 30's for everyone unless you piss me off
- Postrounding is fine
- Preflow before the round
- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.
- Trigger warnings are good on sensitive topics
If I make a bad decision message Nilesh Chander on Facebook.
I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.
Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage
Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages
Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.
Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.
Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.
I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.
For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf
Hey! I'm one of the captains of PF at Bronx Science. my email: email@example.com
Be respectful to each other. If you are not I will drop you.
I'm a pretty standard flow judge, tech > truth.
I don't care what happens in crossfire as long as it's not offensive or abusive. I will be on my phone in crossfire, so if something important happens, bring it up in an actual speech or I won't know that it happened.
Weigh, pleaseeee! If you don't weigh your arguments it will be very difficult to win.
Obviously evidence is good, but I will always prefer clearly warranted arguments that are cleanly + consistently explained over a bunch of card names being thrown in my face with no explanation and being told it wins you the round. It won't. Warrant your arguments.
2nd rebuttal and 1st summary has to frontline. Any defense on your case that you don't respond to is true for the rest of the round.
For novices: If you have any time left at end of 1st rebuttal, please, PLEASE, do not tell me you are going to "go over your case again." I know your case! Try weighing your case's impacts against theirs instead! Don't reread it to me!
Summary and final focus should be very similar, although I think FF needs to weigh more.
Please please please do everything you can to avoid progressive arguments. I will never automatically drop a team for running theory, but I feel like I do not understand progressive debate enough to evaluate it, and if I am confused in round about your progressive arguments, I will not hesitate to resort to voting on substance. If you do feel like there was such a bad abuse within round that it is absolutely necessary to run, you must make it as clear as possible to me.
Do not spread.
If you want more specifics on how I will vote, go to Ayanava Ganguly's paradigm-- I am too lazy to copy and paste his and he is much more eloquent than I am.
And most of all please make this round fun and not a headache! Any way you can make me laugh is appreciated :)
Put me on the email link chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Parent Judge. Please speak clearly, identify your main arguments at the beginning, and make clear transitions. I can't follow people that talk too fast, have too many citations or use debate lingo. I spent most of my career on Capitol Hill working on House Financial Services and Senate Banking Committees. I currently am an attorney at Paul Hastings where I represent fintech, crypto and blockchain companies before Congress and the agencies.
I prefer strong communication skills that are clear, organized, easy to follow and move at a slower pace.
I would also like to see you be polite and engaged.
Persuasiveness, logic, evidence of research, and the quality not the quantity of arguments is important.
PF Paradigm 2021-22 Season:
eDebate - Year of the Delta Variant
I consider myself tech>truth but I have been approaching a closer equilibrium between the two lately due to the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more.
2021 Fall Stats Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 510 rounds since 2014 with a 54% Pro and 46% Con balance. Not bad. Slight Aff bias it seems.
- If we are having a link debate on whether regulation increases/legitimizes crypto vs decreases/deflates crypto I better have some good comparative analysis. Historical examples, warranting, evidence comparison. Resolve the clash. This is just like the Russia acts proactively vs reactively debate from last topic. That was misery.
- If your arguments depend on a specific type of regulation please point to existing legislation or proposals and explain why they would be the most likely implementation of regulations. For example, the infrastructure bill has some proposals that passed the House and Senate a few weeks ago. But tell me why those are the most likely policy proposals that are relevant to this debate. I am not sympathetic to either side saying we can't debate specifics at all and I'm also not sympathetic to an argument that is contingent upon a specific regulation with no warranting to why that would be passed.
- If you send me an NFT or bitcoin I will raise your speaks by .1 points.
- What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
- Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
- Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
- I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory and/or pre-fiat debates in PF. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them that is your prerogative but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. I am more skeptical of paraphrasing theory than disclosure theory. On the former I am sympathetic and have seen myself countless times how "full text" cases are equally capable of being miscut and clipped. Theoretically there is a possible debate on paraphrasing facilitating abuse easier and there could be a good trade off theory debate had but rarely do I see that done well. On the latter I am more open to a disclosure theory debate but still remain more resistant than most flow judges to engaging this argument. I will be especially incredulous of your theory argument if I discover your application of theory is principally inconsistent. For example, you are running disclosure or paraphrasing theory against one team for violating but not another team who violated (assuming both judges would have equally been receptive.) There may be other extenuating circumstances that explain the discrepancy in application but they need to be addressed. Lastly, if you look back at the last 22 rounds or so I've judged with theory or a pre-fiat argument as the primary voter I've probably only voted for the team who introduced said argument in the round 6 of 23 rounds. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic specific rounds but in principle remain tabula rasa.
- What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time.
- If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
- Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
- DA's in general or second rebuttal? You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much.
- I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
- Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Smh y'all.
- If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear.
- My favorite question in cx is: Why?
- My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant or evidence" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."
- Don't read "framework" at the top of case unless it's carded. Rarely is it warranted or carded. It's almost always asserted. If you have a card and have an independent warrant go for it. Otherwise don't waste our time in the speech when we know the debate will end with CBA. You can run overviews and weighing but that's different than framework as some approach it. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.
- I understand the desire to ask for quantifications or quantitative bright-lines. It can be helpful in some debates. However, if you ask for a specific quantification then the burden on you in turn is to provide quantifications for your argument as well. I can't tell you how many times I see teams ask others to quantify their impacts and little if none of their own meet that same standard.
- If you run a percentage increase in an impact or effect you better have the original baseline or original percent if asked. Saying something increases by 845% is misleading without context. If my tea drinking increased by 200% per day and the original amount was 2 oz that isn't significant in context.
- Offtime road maps fine
- Pre-flowing in general should be done before the round. Especially if it's second flight. Like what are y'all doing outside the room lmao. Print out copies or something. Easy.
- Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic]
- To see my discussions and extended preferences please check out r/debate on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/GabeRusk/submitted/
Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union
Coaching Experience: 11 years of coaching, instructor at 14 debate camps, debate camp director, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, Director of Debate at Fairmont 2018-Current, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, Capitol 2016-2018, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.
Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Law & Religion - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment - Majored in Religion and Philosophy at DU '14. Other research areas of familiarity include Buddhism, comparative religion, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & SCOTUS history.
Ahhhhh! You made it this far. Plus .1 speaker points if your pet Zoom bombs.
Hello! I’m Morgan Russell and I am a debate coach (LD, PF, CX, and some Congress). I competed in CX and PF in high school, assistant coached through college, and now head a high school debate team. So I’ve dabbled in it all.
LD: I think framework is important, but it’s not everything. You need evidence and solid analytics to back it up. I prefer we not spread since clarity can be more difficult over Zoom, but if you do spread I will say “clear” once or twice if I can’t understand. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it. Mostly, I’ll judge the round based off what you give me. I’m fine with Ks and Plans in LD.
PF: PF was made to be more accessible, so I don’t like when it gets too new wave. It’s not “mini-policy.” You can use debate jargon, but don’t just read cards the whole time. I need impact calc.
CX: It’s all fair game. As far as spreading, I’m okay but with Zoom it’s more difficult to understand. I will say “clear” once or twice if I can’t understand. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it.
I am a parent judge with some experience. I will take a lot of notes, but I do not “flow”. Please be respectful of each other during the debate. Please speak slowly enough to be understood. You have done your research and worked hard on your case, but I can only give you credit if I can understand what you are saying. Fast arguments challenge my ability to follow you. I will expect teams to keep their own time. I would recommend quality arguments over quantity.
I hope you have fun. Good luck and have a great round.
I am a parent judge without a year of experience judging in PF. A few notes about my preferences:
- Please try to speak slowly, if I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to evaluate it in my decision
- Act civil during crossfire, I will drop your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents
- Don't run arguments that use lots of complex technical argumentation and jargon (K's, theory, etc.)
- I evaluate the flow to judge the round, but please give me a clear narrative, I enjoy voting for arguments that are cohesive and well-warranted
- Don't misconstrue your evidence and make sure that if you paraphrase, it accurately represents your evidence
- Give me clear link extensions and weighing in the final focus, and don't bring up new offense after first summary
- Time yourselves please
- Make sure to address all responses from first rebuttal in your second rebuttal, otherwise I will consider the responses dropped
- If you send me your disclosed case I will give you +1 speaker points. email@example.com
I debated for Bronx Science for (almost) four years, and I'm now at NYU Tisch studying Drama. I'm a technical judge, but lay debate is perfectly fine for me! For more specifics:
For starters, disclose your case and speech docs to me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I have autism, processing info can be hard, so please send me stuff to make my job easier. Please send your case as soon as you get your pairing.
- First rebuttal can extend into final focus. If something was frontlined, though, I expect to hear defense on it.
- I love probability weighing, and I'm inclined to have a low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts.
- I care about truth value, don't run something objectively false and think I'll buy it when it's extended just because I'm tech. Tech > truth as a practice is intellectually dishonest and I think that judges need to stop valuing it.
- Please have a narrative.
- The only progressive stuff I can handle is theory in the case of abuse. You must disclose that you're going to read it.
Keep my flow clean. I shouldn't have to do any work in making a decision. Be organized in your speeches.
- Warrant + Weigh = Win (Ty Tenzin <3)
- I HAVE NO TOLERANCE FOR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RACIST, ANTISEMITIC, ISLAMOPHOBIC, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ABLEIST, OR WHITE FEMINIST. RUNNING THESE ARGUMENTS WILL RESULT IN 20 SPEAKS AND AN AUTOMATIC LOSS. DEBATE IS NOT A SPACE FOR THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
- I hate America First frameworks, I will drop you or give you low speaks if you run them, with some exceptions.
- I pay attention in cross, but don't flow it.
- I don't look at cards unless you ask me to.
I will always make an effort to give an oral RFD, but will write it down if pressed for time. Feel free to ask questions, but don't argue with me.
You do you and you'll be fine if you explain it.
My old paradigm was deleted because people couldn't read iambic pentameter. That's an L for our education sphere
TL/DR : Tech PF Judge. Weigh or I might have to intervene. Ultimately, as a judge I don't tell you how to debate. You do whatever you wish and I decide if you won it on the flow. I think Debate is a game with educational properties, play it as such. I will flow anything. Do what you want. If u destroy "public in Public Forum" I won't hack, but will def appreciate after prolly judging the same debate all over again. IF ANY EVIDENCE IS MISCONSTRUED THE OPPONENTS JUST NEED TO SAY "IT'S AN IVI for ev ethics, research only portable skill in debate" AND I'll GIVE L20. I will probably not intervene if y'all do your job correctly, if you are rude it will just hurt your speaks, but never the win (unless ur doing something like misgendering someone, saying extremely problematic things etc.).
General Information about me:
Hi I'm Srikar (Shree kerr and in curry), please notice that my name isn't "Judge". I did Public Forum, extemp, and UIL CX at A&M Consolidated for 4 years with the tallest man alive Lurz Deutz. I was a fairly "tech" debater and am comfortable with most arguments.
Giving records is cringe but people ask me soooooooooo----
Search it up if you're so interested u little stalker.
Put me on the email chain: Srikartirumala@gmail.com
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE email me before round if there are accessibility concerns! Especially pronouns: I am MORE THAN HAPPY to request for everyone in the round to use gender-neutral pronouns if requested, and please respect pronouns. For me accessibility is a level above the round itself and if I need to stop the round because it is becoming unsafe I shall.
I am a policy maker judge, probably very close to tab. But no one is ever full tab, as I will not vote up arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. This also includes I will assume everything is responsive unless you tell me otherwise. Aka, it is your job to do everything for me, I will just look at flow and not care if it is responsive if it is signposted on a contention and has a warrant-- I will value it. It needs a response for me to not evaluate it. Weighing is a must and is the only path to the ballot. I think judge grilling is good, but if the tournament is running late I may cut this short a bit. U can always message me or come up to me and ask about your rounds.
EXTEND CARD NAMES AND WARRANTS!!! Also a form of ev weighing is card>Paraphrase, I consider this weighing
Disclosure is a good norm, speech docs good norm, paraphrasing is a bad norm, making rounds inaccessible with theory is bad norm. I will still up, might hurt your speaks however. Everything can be phrased in a way anyone can understand if you try hard enough.
PLEASE IF YOUR OPPONENTS ARE HEATHENS READ PARAPHRASE THEORY! I will be tab no matter what but I do not see myself ever wanting to vote up paraphrase good.
If your opponents hyperlink or do not cut their cards that's a TKO if you make it a voter. I won't stop the round but I will stop flowing. You will not win if you do not cut cards.
Honestly SPEECH DOCS, ev exchange is atrocious and I'm considering making this a TKO. If you're gonna be heathens are paraphrase and u don't wanna get dunked on by theory sending speech docs is probably a good idea.
Establish Content Warnings before round. People have their contacts on Wiki, and hopefully, issues they will opt out of there as well. Lack of content warnings aren't a TKO for me. Depending on the severity of the case, I will KILL your speaks, or err HEAVILY towards theory or an IVI. If I can do anything to make the round safer just contact me before round and I'll do whatever.
I can't believe I have to put this here, but please put pronouns on tabroom! I don't want any1 to misgender you and I definitely don't want to on accident. I will prolly err HEAVILY towards some procedural about this.
Clarity is not a weighing mechanism and will make me sad and lose you speaks.
Don't ask to preflow that's something that should be done before round that's the same as "give me 5 minutes need to cut 3 cards for my Underview". Tbh 4 minutes after round starts / flip ends. I will take 0.5 speaks off per minute. Don't waste time.
Strike me if you
1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)
2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L
3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.
4. You're going to read trix expecting me to know what you are saying. I'm fine with them (don't love them) but just explain it to me.
5. You're gonna spread but aren't clear in the SLIGHTEST and expect me to just follow off the doc. If there's a doc I'll go to it only to read ev but ur tags better be clear. This is speech and debate if ur not clear, ur not speaking.
6. Think I'm gonna like you calling for 1000 pieces of ev. It's called a speech doc y'all.
7. Are going to read "debaters must paraphrase/paraphrase good theory" -- adding this one for you Anish. I'll vote off it but please just strike me for my own mental health.
1-5, 3+ I like. I will literally vote on anything, including the sky green so no indo-pak war.
Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS
- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).
- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.
- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better if you paraphrase and ur speaks are gone.
Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.
K : 4
- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.
- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.
- I am fairly familiar with Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, and Cap to a degree, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV.
Plans/CP : 5
- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.
- I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
- All good,weigh them!
If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"
I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.
I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIII
- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.
- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.
Performance/Non T AFFs : 4
You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.
- If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.
- Line by line only please
- Defense is NOT sticky
- 2nd Rebuttal must frontline ALL responses from 1st
- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30
I default to condo and comparative worlds
So here I think it's important to know where I did policy back in the day, which was UIL 5A policy, I did fairly well there, but you're basically free to run anything you think your old school policy judges will buy.
Dude I don't know Phil don't make me use my brain, explain it to me like I am a lay judge and I can vote off it.
Compared to PF I am not as familiar with k. I am 100% fine (and love) voting off it, however, you're gonna need to explain it to me REALLY REALLY WELL. In HS I LARPED typically, and I probably understand that better. PLEASE TREAT ME LAY if you are going to read K. I'm not so dumb that I will just stare at you, but I need to know how different items interact.
In the wise words of Owen Phoenix-Flood "If u spread Deleuze prepare to deLOSE my ballot" bc I prolly won't understand
I'm probably gonna be lost in a trix debate.
I'm p good with speed, but I'm not gonna look at your doc unless I need to. Ie- BE CLEAR and slow down for tags!
CX is binding. Don't ask "where did u finish doc" in CX, if they say "I finished it all" and they clearly didn't please just flow lol.
Post round me / ask questions as much as you want. Here is something interesting though. If you think I made the wrong decision AND You can convince me otherwise, I will change my decision, but you must make it clear that you are trying to change my decision. I don't wanna deal with "I have 1 billion questions". If you think I'm big dumb and I need to change my decision, you're allowed to trade 1/2 a speak for 3 minutes of post-rounding. I have no issue changing my decision. Judges should be kept accountable for their decisions. I add this here because I have never been persuaded against my decision in post rounding, if I like completely forgot that you extended an argument or something this could work, but again, this probably will never happen I think I'm p decent at flowing. I also will take time to make sure I didn't forget about your 5-second blip (even though it's prolly under warranted and under implicated lol).
I will intervene in __ conditions.
1. You try to win off a racist/sexist/homophobic etc. argument. A good example of this is "racism is a democratic value".
2. Both teams don't give a path to the ballot (I intervene here by coinflip presumption)
3. There is a 100% conceded link chain, I will give a lil leeway on warranting (if there is even a piece of mitigation, and the FULL link chain isn't extended, I will not vote off the argument).
4. Someone tells me to gut check / intervene on an argument (and there isn't a response)
5. There is an argument that is severely under warranted. if it's conceded and the weighing is clear I'll vote on it still hesitantly. If I can't understand something or how it interacts in the round it's really hard for me to vote on.
I will call for cards in 3 events:
1. I just am interested and want to read
2. I am told to explicitly
3. You change your evidence to become some god card that answers all.
4. YOU ARE PARAPHRASING HEATHENS AND I WANT TO SEE HOW BAD U FAKED EV (but I won't intervene if ur opponents didn't call u out, but I'll make sure they know it was fake for future rounds).
I will not vote off evidence unless the round was horrible or I was told to call for it, but if I still call for it and it was bad, I might make note of it
Every minute you come late to round is a speaker point off
A good speaker is one who signposts, weighs, does comparative analysis, and has good evidence ethics.
If you don’t give speech docs you’re capped at a 29 -- more for online debate, but I think the same should be said for in person.
If you paraphrase with speech docs you’re capped at a 28
If you paraphrase with no speech docs you’re capped at a 27
If you want to avoid this cap read a warrant why you should get 30 speaks and extend it through speeches. This is the price for heathenism.
Some speaks boost.
Don't do GCX
Play Hype Music (+0.5 if I like the music if not you just look cool get some perceptual dominance)
Do a speech while doing pushups (+0.5)
Take no prep (+1)
Cursing (+ how colourful the language is)
Your speaks will magically rise if you bring food, use a table tote , and if you don't call me "judge".
Here is a list of acceptable food:
---Cookies, Chips etc
--- If u bring foods that contain meat products L20. If there isn't vegetarian-friendly food, chew out the tournament.
Anything else that might entertain me will also increase your speaks. Don't be too serious debate is a game -- have fun!
For me, content is about 48% and presentation is the rest, this is a speech event after all.
I value a good substructure with fluid transitions between.
A lot of extempers don't really warrant their statistics, have good warranted analysis and don't just throw facts at me.
I follow the news a lil bit, so don't try and tell me something that is 100% false (like Donald Trump has a high approval rating).
I'll prolly be tired from judging debate events, or just be tired because I don't sleep so a solid AGD goes a long way.
If we are still online please just time yourself, if we are in person I’ll time as well and give y’all 3 down. If u want something different let me know.
Some cool peps:
Allen Zhang - Goat status
Richard Li - 2nd only to Allen
If you have any further questions, or wanna talk about your round email me at Srikartirumala@gmail.com
If you scroll this far pull up a meme on ur laptop and hold it up during cross and I'll boost ur speaks by a random number generator. If ur in speech haha time sucked. This part does NOT APPLY TO ONLINE DEBATE
I've judged LD & PF since 2 years. I don't mind you speaking fast, but speak clearly and generally do not prefer spreading. I like clear & logical arguments!
I wouldn't mind if you want to briefly explain your case before starting!
Please attack only the arguments of your opponent and do not be rude or aggressive towards them. Prefer respectful attitude.
Have coherent arguments. Every argument should explain exactly how you win the debate.
Enjoy your debate! Be willing to take risks and be confident.
Hello, I am Dave and I will be your judge today.
There are some very importnat things that I want to happen in the round, if you do these you will win the ballot.
Please keep the discussion civil. Derogatory comments will negatively impact you.
I am a parent judge and have had 2 years of local tournament judging. Please minimize technical jargon and language. I will best understand your points if they are delivered clearly and at a pace less than light speed. Please warrant your repsonses and explain your cards. Finally, I appreciate clear thinking and logical responses as much as facts, data, and cards.
Enjoy the round!
I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)
I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.
Congress at the bottom.
Send me case/speech docs at the start please (email@example.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.
I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.
Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.
I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.
Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.
Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.
Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.
Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.
If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).
I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.
For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.
A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.
In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.
I am a lay judge
What that specifically entails:
1. No spreading, no blippy arguments, no theory/K's, etc. Moreover, I put a huge emphasis on presentation skills and the ability to speak well/slow/confidently.
2. I need very very very clear warranting, clear link chains, and clear impact analysis. Assume that I am not super well versed in the topic so explain everything.
3. Absolutely no technical terms as there is a high chance I do not know what they mean. This, once again, emphasizes the need to explain everything.
I am a lay judge. Use weighing to write my ballot. Ask me questions if you want to know specific preferences.
Auto 29 speaks if you can speak at a conversational speed the entire round.
4 years of debate in high school (1947-1951)
PF Coach at Rowland Hall (2018-2019)
Head Speech & Debate Coach at Park City (2019-2021)
PF Coach at Nueva (2021-now)
- You must answer turns in second rebuttal.
- I would strongly prefer that you answer defense in second rebuttal.
- First summary only has to extend defense if second rebuttal frontlines it – it doesn’t have to if second rebuttal doesn’t frontline defense.
This is where debates are usually won or lost.
- It’s a waste of time if it isn’t comparative and specific to your opponents’ offense.
- Carded weighing tends to mean nothing.
- The earlier the better. There’s no reason not to weigh in second rebuttal.
- Weighing needs to be warranted.
- I think weighing on magnitude/timeframe is usually more effective than probabilistic weighing. I view probability as being derived from the content of the debate itself, so probability weighing usually doesn’t fundamentally alter the outcome of the debate, whereas magnitude/timeframe weighing often makes for a cleaner RFD.
I hate all of them.
Do not ask if you can answer the question when time elapses. The answer is no.
I think the pedagogical value of debate largely rests in its self-determinative nature. If you think that theory is necessary to substantively change norms within the space, I think that's a worthwhile goal.
Nonetheless, keep the following in mind:
- I’ve been somewhat perturbed by the number of teams reading theory against opponents that clearly have no idea what to do about it, while making no effort to make it easily understandable or accesible. This almost always disappoints me, and your speaker points will reflect that.
- Norm setting does not always require that you prove in-round abuse.
- It is imperative that you give clear, comparative reasoning as to why procedurals come before substance or vice versa. When ~really smart~ teams disagree with my decision, it is almost always because they cannot understand why this is necessary. I'm begging you: read the bolded sentence above again and be sure you understand what that means before you make an argument like this in front of me.
- Speaker point theory is a no from me.
- I need better warranting on fairness claims. I have no idea what people are talking about when they say debate ceases to exist if it’s structurally unfair. What does that mean? This wreaks of privilege – look around bro (and it is, invariably, a bro), debate is already incredibly unfair. This claim is obviously very silly, and teams should either stop being melodramatic or do a better job articulating the argument.
I think PF lacks the speed or speech lengths needed to adequately advance a fully-fledged K. I will evaluate these arguments fairly and earnestly – particularly given that they genuinely interest me – but I would advise caution in using PF as a venue for critical argumentation.
If you are reading an actual K:
- Know that I have no background in formal K debate. I’m not ideologically opposed to you using the space as you wish, however, and will reward well-researched, well-articulated argumentation.
- I will be most pleased by critical arguments that delineate a clear role for their opponents which includes a meaningful path to the ballot. If your goal is to engage/educate, you should offer reasonable mechanisms for that engagement that can be reciprocally rewarded with the ballot.
- I do, however, think that most critical theory can be used in weighing much more effectively in this format than as a full K shell.
- If you cannot provide cut cards, the maximum speaks I will give you is 28. If you’re a team that ought to know better (e.g., you come from a large, well-funded program or I know you went to camp), I will vote you down exclusively for sending PDFs or links. The NSDA rules stipulate that your card should look something like this. If what I see in the email chain doesn’t look like that, it’s going to be an incredibly frustrating round for everyone involved.
- I will give your speaks a bump of between +.3 and +1.0 for sending speech docs, high quality disclosure, and quoting evidence directly.
- I'll also bump up speaks for getting to round early and/or starting early.
- Argumentation in debate – particularly on the national circuit – is often very enthymematic. This is normal, natural, and understandable, as debates are short and the time crunch forces certain premises to be omitted from the discussion. Nonetheless, the team with the fewest enthymemes will probably pick up my ballot.
- I’ve never judged a round where speed was inherently a problem. That being said, speed should be used to expand the depth of the debate, not the breadth; strategies that seek to use speed as a tool to confuse, overwhelm, and/or misdirect opponents will make me very sad.
- I will vote on/for arguments that are objectively stupid, but I'll be sad doing it. This will be reflected in your speaker points.
- I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time.
- Link/Evidence comparison is critical. Why is your link stronger than your opponents'? The better you answer this question, the less intervention there will be on my part.
Send questions and fan mail via Facebook messenger.
hello and welcome! i debated pf for montgomery blair (am now a first-year at yale) and consider myself a pretty standard judge. my paradigm is really long. sorry. the tl;dr is that i expect clear warranting, impact extensions, weighing (!!), all the usual stuff. i will not claim to be 100% a tech judge -- i think lay debate is actually way more important than flow -- and while i will do my best to evaluate solely off of the args you make, i would suggest that you consider me a flay judge for all intents and purposes.
yale 21 - this is my first time judging this topic so pls bear that in mind lol (especially in earlier rounds)
you need content/trigger warnings, and i would HIGHLY recommend an opt-out process. if you do not provide them and read a potentially triggering argument/impact, i will automatically drop you + give you extremely low speaker points (subject to tournament rules). i will remind you of this before the round in case you did not get a chance to read my paradigm.
i'm generally quite lax and happy to adapt to whatever round you give me (if there's a different paradigm you want me to judge under, let me know & we can talk about it), but i do not tolerate rudeness or discrimination of any kind. debate should be fun! anything deliberately unkind is grounds for lowered speaks, and if blatantly offensive/egregious, for an automatic loss (subject to tournament rules).
that's the important stuff. if u want more details, keep reading
unlike a lot of judges, i actually really do value crossfire. i won't flow it unless you refer to cross in a later speech, but i am absolutely paying attention. be assertive but not aggressive. i will be very unhappy and lower your speaks if you are aggressive/disrespectful at any point in the round.
i love rhetoric! like i said, i think lay debate > flow debate. good explanations + speaking pretty --> speaker points (which is a flawed system anyway, but that's a different note. i do subscribe to low-point wins).
do not call cards just to waste time. do not prep while your opponent is looking for a card. to the team pulling up a card: i know it can be hard, but please please PLEASE add links ahead of time -- don't just give the other team the cut version (context is important!). i won't be super mad if it takes you a while to find a card because i get it, but i'll definitely be a little irritated.
yes, you can use a timer, but i'll also be keeping track. knocking, raising your hand, and waving a timer in your opponent's or even your partner's face while they are speaking, etc. isn't cool. i'm pretty lenient and will let you finish your sentence, but don't abuse this.
for every taylor swift reference you make, I'll +1 your speaker points. make 3 good ones (subject to my interpretation), and you’ll get an automatic 30 -- unless you’re mean during round :(
after the round:
if you have a question, comment, concern, anything, please feel free to ask me after the round. you can also always email me if something comes up later. i would generally rather you (respectfully) ask me questions about my decision and rationale instead of being upset about it / feeling i was unfair afterward. please be courteous to your opponents (and your partner!) after the round!
on theory/prog debate:
in general, know that i firmly believe that you should only run a progressive arg if you legitimately believe it. please do not run theory just because. there is no way for me to know if you believe it or not, but it really irritates me when debaters try to perpetuate norms that they don't even fully understand (you can talk to me about this take if you are interested). i agree that there are some instances when theory is necessary and am not against it at all, but just note that dialogue can also happen out of round (in round abuses are definitely an exception). don't run theory if your opponents are not comfortable with it. i will ask both teams before the round about comfort level w/ progressive argumentation -- hold me to this! don't run theory if your opponents explicitly say they're not okay with it. please. there are some (very, very valid) exceptions for legit in-round abuses
you can run whatever on me and i will evaluate it, but be warned that i don't know the "right way" to do so for progressive argumentation at all. please make it really really clear & as lay-friendly as you can because i don't want to mess up or make you upset!
still want more info?? ok...
Hi I'm Manjari!
I am a parent judge who has brief experience judging PF debate. I judged a few CFL's last year but this is my first time judging a major tournament.
Please have clarity in your arguments and do not spread. Be respectful during the round and have fun!
I did PF in high school! Here are some things I like to see in a round:
1. Pretty extensions. If you want me to vote on an argument, re-explain it in summary and final focus.
2. Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you want me to vote on one of your contentions, you should defend it in second rebuttal.
3. Collapsing. It's better to pick and clearly explain 1 of your contentions than speed through 3.
4. Weighing. Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponents'.
5. A friendly crossfire. Please don't interrupt or talk over your opponent in cross. I probably won't pay attention to crossfire, but if people are being mean I'll drop speaks.
I'm not super familiar with progressive arguments (k, theory, etc.), so if you do run them please explain them well.
Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!
P.S. if you do a TikTok dance/make a TikTok reference you'll get +.5 speaks
I have several years of experience judging both PF and LD. I am open to a wide variety of approaches to a topic and try not to intervene in a round unless absolutely necessary. Generally, I encourage debaters to consider quality over quantity, making links between evidence, contentions, and impacts as clear as possible, and to avoid speaking at super-human speed. It is also helpful when debaters consider framework and make a case for what voting issues should be in a round and how the arguments should be weighed. Please be mindful of not speaking over one another during CF.
Lynbrook '21 qualled to TOC, captain my senior year, all that good stuff.
run crazy stuffffffff i like squirrely arguments (theory, Ks, nuke war good) - debates boring
note: if im judging u in the morning im probably extremely tired. pls adjust accordingly :))
im not that well versed in the topic yet
Conflicts: Potomac, Lynbrook
tech > truth
go for it
ask questions in round if ur unsure
idk how i do speaks
if u buy me coffee auto 30
note: tryy not to be aggro (i dont care about cross anyways)
skip gcx if u please, but im only willing to make it 1 min of prep (not 3)
Parent judge who prefers slower speaking.
Truth heavy judge, do not run frivolous or clearly wrong/confusing arguments. (Please avoid running progressive arguments)
Be clear in your later speeches why you are the team that won with a wholistic summary of the round.
Be respectful and time yourself accurately.
Overall, have fun!
Hi! I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida from 2014 to 2019. I'm now a student at Duke University and this is my third year coaching PF at Durham Academy.
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.
- Second rebuttal isn’t required to frontline but I do think it is really strategic to do so (especially turns).
- First summary doesn't need terminal defense (I guess you could say its ~sticky~ even though that word is gross).
- I think a lot of debaters give "flow" judges too much credit for knowing things. I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round. If your argument is still unclear to me after 4 speeches and 3 crossfires, thats your fault not mine. While I do coach and usually know the resolution well, please do not assume I know everything.
- 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).
- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents.
- 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. So running it to waste time, get a cheap win, or exclude your opponents from the debate will result in low speaks and possibly a loss if you annoy me enough. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.
- I'm also not super confident in my ability to evaluate progressive args so proceed with caution.
- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a trigger/content warning before the round. Please work to maintain debate as a safe space and refrain from reading potentially triggering arguments if someone in the round asks you not to. If you have any questions as to what a content warning is, how to go about reading a content warning, or if you're unsure if you should read one- let me know before the round. I'm more than happy to help you! With that being said, I am very receptive to trigger warning theory if one is either not read or violated.
- This should really go without saying but- racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate. If I deem your behavior to be excessively rude, condescending, arrogant, or hateful, I reserve the right to intervene and drop you.
Hopefully this covered everything but if you still have questions after reading please feel free to ask before the round!
I am a parent judge
I am an experienced lay judge. I don’t like fast talking and value quality of arguments over quantity. Make sure your arguments are well developed. If I don't understand them, it makes it difficult to vote on them. Same goes for refutations. Please be polite and respectful to your opponents and time yourselves, if possible.
Hi, I;have judged few tournaments and have been watching my son debate for a while because of which I have a very good understanding of how PF debate works. I have a background is business with a MBA degree and have several speaking engagements as part of my day job
Don't spread but you don't have to go painfully slow either. My son speaks really fast, so I've gotten used to a little speed in everyday conversation. Clearly explain the argument. If it's not in FF, I'm not voting on it. No new analysis in second FF. Other than that, pretty tabula rasa, will try my best not to intervene.
Speaks: Making your point in calm and composed way that clearly communicates your point will get you higher points
Background: Software executive that has both a tech and business background. Do not read random economic arguments that aren't true/don't make sense (for ex. don't read that the US dollar is gonna collapse, that's basically never going to happen)
Feel free to ask me any questions before the round that I may have missed. Have fun!
- I am a new judge. Please speak clearly, identify your main arguments at the beginning, and make clear transitions between arguments.
Make a JoJo's Bizarre Adventures reference and I'll give you 30 speaker points. Or quote Kanye in round.
Done PF for 4 years at Mira Loma High School.
Can flow 250-300 words per minute. Send a speech doc anyways because lag n all that.
I don't think defense is sticky so make sure you extend all dropped defense.
When extending, mention the card name as well as the links/warrants associated with it during summary. During focus it's be fine to just extend the card's name and the narrative.
Okay with Ks and Theory. Make it good though or I'll be less inclined to vote on it (structure it properly and make it make sense in the context of the round).
I won't look at cards unless it's heavily contested or a team asks me to call for one.
I won't pay attention during cross. If something important happens then mention it in your speech.
I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019, now I teach/coach debate (policy and congress) at Success Academy Midtown West and Harlem West.
Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you.
I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.
I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.
I am not as familiar with the post-modern literature - so just make sure you are clearly explaining the alternative. Most of the K literature I know well is race and gender based.
Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.
PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.
I am a lay judge, but have been taught to flow and have two years of experience judging PF. I prefer clear, slower speaking. Signposts are also super helpful. I don't intervene; I will judge your contentions by your ability to extend them and your opponents' ability (or lack thereof) to undermine them. I look for a logical argument. I like summaries and final focuses that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I never called a card when judging in person, but now that competitions are virtual, I do look at the cards that are called, and I have occasionally called a card myself. Speaking with passion is cool; aggressiveness is not. I do not like debates run on theory.
For evidence, start an email chain or a shared google doc at the beginning of the round. It is for your benefit to not share cards through the chat. Include me on the chain - I'll give my email in the chat during the round.
On the current topic, many teams impact to nuclear war. Keep in mind I am a parent judge, and that may or may not influence my opinion toward the likelihood of the impact.
WEIGH. WEIGH. WEIGH. Otherwise I will be forced to do link/impact comparison for you, and you may not like how I do it.
I'll answer specific questions in-round. I am a flow judge, 4 years of circuit PF experience. I do policy debate in college.
This is my third year as a lay parent PF judge.
I am usually familiar with the topics as I am judging tournaments that my daughter participates in, and the AFF and NEG are discussed around the dinner table.
Speed is fine, but I find it much more interesting to listen to people talking rather than listen to people reading out loud.
When using statistics or quoting numbers, please explain why they are important and how they support your contentions and arguments otherwise I usually find those meaningless.
Intense crossfire is great, but please keep it polite and respectful.
I am a newer parent judge who has enjoyed this responsibility over the last year. I will listen to both arguments and make a fair and unbiased opinion based on the facts, and who seems to have the better argument. I expect participants to be respectful to one another while expressing their opinion and being passionate about it. I expect that you will be prepared for the debate and not fumble through the presentation. Bonus points for those that show evidence to their argument and can prove it relates to the topic at hand. If a participant makes a false statement, I expect the other side to argue and point it out in cross examination. This is my First tournament judging Public Forum, so make sure you explain the topic and put it in Layman terms.
I am a mainly a PF Debater but have some experience in CNDF.
1. I am fine with speed but make sure it's articulate, although if you can express your thoughts going conversation speed, it could boost speaker points.
2. I flow and expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches.
3. Although it is good to be critical and I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.
4. Make sure you're asking questions during crossfire rather than give speeches. And I appreciate questions that are asked in a way that is super chill.
5. I appreciate theories. No one expects it and you win because of theory and sometimes you even win on theory.
6. I think Impact turns > Link turns (no risk of a link)
7. I typically vote on what happens in the debate, and not on what I know or think I know.
Online debate: Technical difficulties are bound to happen and all i ask is that you are patient as we work them out! If you're a very fast speaker, i ask that you slow down a bit because computer audio can be bad, and I don't want you to lose because I couldn't hear what you said.
I am a lay judge
What that specifically entails:
1. No spreading, no blippy arguments, no theory/K's, etc. Moreover, I put a huge emphasis on presentation skills and the ability to speak well/slow/confidently.
2. I need very very very clear warranting, clear link chains, and clear impact analysis. Assume that I am not super well versed in the topic so explain everything.
3. Absolutely no technical terms as there is a high chance I do not know what they mean. This, once again, emphasizes the need to explain everything.
Hi, I’m Hannah (she/her).
A few things about me:
- I am a recent graduate of the Blake School and I did PF on the national circuit throughout my time there. I currently coach for Blake.
- I am generally pretty flexible when it comes to how you debate. My one preference is speed. Please do not spread. Too often it is super unclear and I can't understand it. Overall do what makes you comfortable :)
- Sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and racism are still all too common in debate and will not be tolerated. I will give you a loss and terrible speaker points if you make your opponents or anyone in the space feel uncomfortable
- I am in my first year of college, so I am currently very busy. I have very limited topic knowledge so please explain things
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org AND email@example.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain and feel free to contact me after the round if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.
How I evaluate rounds and generally what I would like to see:
- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline all turns and frontline defense.
- Dropped turns are considered an offense for the other team if they choose to capitalize on it.
- The Back Half: In order for me to vote on something (offense, defense, and weighing), it needs to be in the summary and the final focus. Also please collapse. Don't try to win every single point in the debate. The summary and final focus should narrow the round down to a few key ideas. The depth of your arguments is much more important than the number of arguments you make.
- Weighing: Weighing is the first place I look when I make my decision. The sooner you weigh, the better. Additionally, it is important that your weighing is comparative. If there are multiple weighing mechanisms in the round, please explain why your mechanisms are more important.
- Evidence: Evidence is incredibly important to winning my ballot. Debate is an educational activity and research is a key part of that learning. It is important that you site a reputable author and that you are reading cards. I have found that it is extremely easy, whether intentional or unintentional, to misrepresent evidence when you paraphrase. Additionally, academics are held to an extremely high level of scrutiny when it comes to their writing. Directly quoting these sources will a, ensure that what you are saying is backed up by those who are experts within their discipline, and b, it will also boost your persuasion. Evidence quoting an expert in that field is much more convincing than an analytic.
If you are paraphrasing, which would make me sad but I understand that it is hard to change your practices for a single round, please make sure you are doing the following:
- Per NSDA rules, please have a cut card or the paragraph readily available for your opponent or me to see if requested. Your opponents should not need to take prep to sort through your PDF and we should not be waiting longer than a minute for you to produce evidence. If you can't quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow.
- You still need to cite authors and read warrants. Reading 40 different paraphrased arguments in rebuttal does nothing to enhance the debate. You are simply reading blippy arguments that do little to increase the depth of the round.
- Progressive argumentation:
I am a fan of progressive debate. I think Ks and theory if done well and used properly, can make the debate space a much safer and more inclusive community. However, there are a few things you should know if you decide to run a progressive argument.
- I ran a lot of critical cases when I debated, but I never ran a full-on K. While I am familiar with some of the literature, you will have to explain some of it to me.
- I have only been in a few rounds where theory has been read. I am familiar with the structure of a shell and I will evaluate the shell the same way I would evaluate any other type of argument, but you may need to slow things down a bit for me.
- I am not a fan of frivolous theory. If you run arguments such as shoe theory or 30 speaks theory, I won't vote on it.
- I am more biased towards arguments like paraphrasing bad and disclosure good. I generally think these practices are good for the community. That being said, I will still evaluate the shell and if you win the shell and make the implication that it wins you the round, I will still vote for you. I will just be sad doing it :(
Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I coach PF for American Heritage. I have worked at summer camps including Capitol Debate and Millennials at Georgetown University.
Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.
Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- firstname.lastname@example.org.
Evidence exchanges in the virtual space can be a little smoother. I think they are easier when a google doc is created. I would really appreciate it if you all could send each other speech docs to limit the amount of time for evidence exchanges. At the very least, I will follow NSDA rules and time you for 1 minute for each card you need to find and then use your prep time for the remainder of time it takes you to send the card. I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.
What I like to see in the round:
Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing arguments and worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.
If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!
I love hearing critical arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.
What isn't necessary in the round:
Only give an off-time roadmap if it is truly necessary. For example, roadmaps before 1st rebuttal are not required. If you give me a roadmap, please briefly tell me where you will start and be efficient with that explanation. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!
Please let me know if you have any questions!
This is my third year judging as a parent judge. I don’t have many rules. Just make sure you interact with each others arguments. In addition make sure you are kind and respectful to your opponents.
Hi y'all, I'm Haley (she/her).
I did 3 years of PF and 1 year of Parli in high school.
While I do flow, consider me a flay judge. If anything is too tech-y and you're spreading, I'm not going to follow it.
Be courteous and respectful to your opponents. :)
I am a new judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please be respectful to one another.
I am a Business Systems Analyst by profession. I appreciate clarity and logical reasoning over a flood of data.
hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. email chain! email@example.com
above all else, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth.
i also give good speaks! (see speaks section)
most important thing:
so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you have enough time in summary, i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.
other less important stuff:
online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)
speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".
whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.
defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.
new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.
i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.
weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.
i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.
i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).
no friv theory, no tricks >:(
i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus
i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).
one caveat: if you are reading an argument on complete novices that don't understand prog just to get an easy win, you will be dropped (taken from Brian Zhu's paradigm)
i'm generally very generous with speaks. i give 30s often (check my judging history!)
if you debate really well and the round is close i will probably feel bad for dropping one team over the other so i will give everyone 30s as compensation (you'll also get 30s if you debate well regardless of how well the other team debated)
i will tank your speaks to the minimum if your rebuttal "re-strengthens your own case" and you spend 2 minutes just repeating cards with no frontlining (esp. first rebuttal)
if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!
I have a preference towards arguments that effectively tie back to their value, but you must of course also warrant that your value is the best value in the debate (if it isn't pure utilitarianism I expect at least some chain of logic for why, say, "Freedom for everyone" is optimal in a way that probably concludes with a bit of utilitarian ideology).
It is unlikely that I will effectively flow your evidence points, so if the argument comes down to minutia of "your card vs my card" I urge you to be very clear about the heightened credibility or significance of your evidence over your opponent's, as I find myself often weighing a debate overwhelmingly by the evidence.
Please avoid spreading too much. Speed is fine, but the moment you sacrifice pronounciation OR lose insightful inflection, you've probably lost me too. I will flow aggressively and do my best to keep up with your arguments on paper.
Paradigm: I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging PF since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric. I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.
If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.
FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.
Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.
Hello my name is Levale, I ask that everyone is nice during round (try not to get too heated). I love a lot of clash! For the first speakers I ask that you please give me voters in the summary speeches so I know what to vote on and who to vote for based upon your voter issues and the way you back then up. For the second speakers , in final focus please tell me why I should vote for you based off the voter issues provided by you partner in summary.
I am a former debater I debated all my years in high school as a second speaker in public forum.
Good day everyone:
My name is Giri Venkatraman- I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.
I plan to be a traditional judge; my favorite topics are healthcare and politics. As contestants, please avoid spreading and I will keep the rounds that I judge simple, and signpost my arguments
Thanks-looking forward to it !
I am a flay judge in that I have lots of experience judging, but I'm not an actual flow judge. I know how the debate process works, and I've judged in over 15 tournaments.
Good rhetoric and lay appeal and I will most likely vote for you. If you don't know something or are otherwise unsure/unready for something just fake it until you make it; I like seeing confidence.
I will not flow cross-ex but I will be paying attention. If you bring something up in cross-ex and want me to flow it, remember to say it in speech as well. Emphasize important points with speech inflections, as well as bring up things you want me to remember/write down several times. Don't put down your opponent (like in LD) and don't bully during cross-ex, although remember to be assertive and stand up for your partner (during grand) if you have to.
It doesn't matter to me what you do while you speak, as long as you make eye contact regularly. Sit, stand, meditate, doesn't matter to me. Please try to signpost as much as possible, it really helps, and it makes it a lot easier to follow what you're saying. It also helps your speaks (now you're listening, huh?). Gesticulate, use ethos, pathos, logos, talk loud, whatever you have to do to get my attention and my vote (and high speaks).
Since I'm not a professionally trained judge, I don't have any specific policy against K's, but don't expect me to go with your point of view without strong rhetoric. I must need to know exactly WHY their view on a policy is wrong, and WHY your take matters more. If I were you, I would not run a kritik.
Insulting your opponent is DIFFERENT FROM arguing with them. You can say the same thing by yelling as you can by assertively speaking to your opponent. Please do not argue/yell/bully your opponent. That is a sure way to lose speaks and maybe the entire round.
I, like the vast majority of other judges, will have an easier time listening and understanding to you if you speak slower. Note: I prefer slower speaking, but I can handle faster speed to some degree. I may look confused/stop writing/not take note of important parts if you are going to slow; that means I do not understand you, and you may need to slow down.
I can promise you that I will understand these issues more than most judges. Please make sure to time yourselves, if there is a discrepancy between the prep time, speech time, etc., try to work it out yourselves, although I will interfere if too much time is taken.
Thanks for reading this information, although I know it's long and boring. Good luck!
Lay judge! Please be slow and clear. Your arguments should not be overly complicated in the round. Be respectful to your opponents.
Hi, I'm Jazmyn (she/her)! I used to debate at Hunter College High School. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make this round safe for all participants. For email chains, questions, concerns, etc.: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Run whatever arguments you're comfortable with (as long as they're not exclusionary); assume I know nothing about the topic; wear whatever you'd like; you decide whether to sit or stand; keep your own time and point out if your opponents are over; pre-flow before the round; use content warnings and allow others involved in the round to anonymously opt-out (we can discuss how to do this if you aren't sure how).
Please warrant and weigh.
- Offense must be extended through summary AND final focus, including warrants and impacts. You can get a pretty good idea of my preferences from the paradigms that I linked above, but I'll do my best to adapt to how you want to debate.
- I'd love it if you slow down. If you feel that you need to go fast, that's okay, but I can't guarantee that I'll understand it/flow it.
- I'm tech over truth, but if you're making factually incorrect claims, my threshold for a response is going to go down.
- Analytics with warrants > cards without warrants.
- Don't tell me that racism, sexism, etc. is the most important impact in the round and then drop it.
- I don't know what the phrase "uniqueness controls the directionality of the link" means.
I am a parent judge and although I don't have much experience judging PF, my son is a debater in High School. Please just try to keep the speed at a reasonable pace and refrain from using technical debate jargon. Other than that, just be respectful during round.
College student, debated national circuit PF for 2 years. Mostly flow, with a couple lay preferences.
1. Please enunciate your words and do not reach full spreading speed. Fast is ok, just keep things within the reasonable realm for PF.
2. I may not understand theory unless you explain it well. If you do read it, I will do my best to evaluate, but please don't assume I have a background in the theory you're reading.
- I will be blank slate as much as possible, but if an impact / arg seems absolutely outlandish from the common sense perspective, I will call for evidence and use my own discretion as necessary.
- Please pick and choose your arguments. Don't try to keep everything going into summary, though I won't automatically penalize you as a result. Just a good rule to keep in mind.
- Warranting requires logic and evidence. Summary & FF should collapse on warranting and impact. Weigh in both those speeches. If weighing mechanisms clash, tell me why yours is better.
- Don't make new arguments in cross. Witty humor may net you extra speaks.
- Please be polite to your opponents and respect the work they've put into prepping & practicing. No one round matters more than the overall experience of enjoying debate and having respectful discourse.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts. Good luck!
IMPORTANT: (From Tara Bhagat) If anyone reading this feels that debate or the debate community isn't a safe place for them and wants someone to talk to about it, no matter how small the issue, please reach out. If I or someone I know has made you feel unsafe, please do not hesitate to let me know so I can attempt to rectify the situation and/or change my behavior. Email me at email@example.com or just hit me up on Facebook.
** FOR NOCEMBER **
I wrote an article about cryptocurrency and inflation published in the National Review. Not sure how this will play into y'alls cases, but if you reference my article in your speech, I will give you an auto-30 speaks.
TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me...please)
Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/// ) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; currently studying computer science, economics, and math at ASU
- All arguments fly as long as they are well warranted
- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO
- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy
- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient
- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus
- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded
- First summary should extend turns and key defense
- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do
- Road maps and signposting are fantastic, do it
- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn
- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one
- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick
- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"
- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary
- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)
- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss
- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names
- If you plan on spreading...don't
- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard
- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to
- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks
- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.
- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!
- Creative sports, Kanye, or Kendrick Lamar references will get you a boost in speaks
- Have fun!
I competed in PF for 4 years. Please feel free to ask questions any time on Facebook Messenger.
I presume for the neg.
No new weighing in 2nd FF.
No Ks and use theory only for egregious abuse.
Cross isn't that serious; Please stop making my head hurt.
L0 if you make any ___ist arguments.
Wanting to be an educator of some stripe, rhetorical coach, and political activist.
I was a public forum debater at George S. Parker High.
Tabula-rasa, within reason.
I like framework.
Less is more. Less total arguments, more quality ones.
Speak at a speed that leaves your diction in tact, if you think spreading will impress me, it will not.
Flow judge with a deep appreciation for rhetoric and analysis, add a healthy dose of that stuff
Crossfire should be Q and A, back and forth. Lets do that.
Collapse off bad arguments, tell me as clearly as you can what weighing you are winning.
Speaks are worthless, you'll get above a 29 barring self-destruction on an untold level.
Email chain for evidence exchanges, disclose your cases to me and your opponent.
four turns equals a square and I have the power of god and anime on my side
TLDR: tech judge, defense is sticky for 1summ, if you don't extend case in both speeches, im capping your speaks at a 27, will vote on K's and theory. safety first, for any specific questions about this pls read my paradigm.
Important info for this topic (I edit this every topic): Everyone needs to be doing more impact work on their econ arguments. Why is crypto adoption k2 Econ growth? I have no idea so far. Everyone also needs to be reading more stats, like what percent of remittences are currently sent in crypto? I need to know.
add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
For any other questions, read: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DUAk_GjZJBvD4iNQz69oIYEwygf2uHCenFzgkFtYC5M/edit?usp=sharing
LD and Policy:
Please send speech docs with fully typed analyts and full tags. Also these are not my home events so sorry if I make a bad call. Feel free to post round me.
I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.
I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. This goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.
I need parallelism (summary+FF) for any offense you want me to vote for.
I realize this is controversial, but I don’t require defense in summary, although it usually makes sense to extend in 2nd summ once you know what offense your opponent is going for. With that being said, if your opponents frontline case in 2nd rebuttal, you need to answer back their frontlines in 1st summary if you still wanna go for that defense. Defense is most important for me in Final Focus though, so if you want me to delink/NU the offense they're going for, blow it up in FF. (Long story short, good pieces of defense can be extended as terminal D from rebuttal to FF if not answered by your opponents.)
Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.
I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )
Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time.
I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me.
Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.
Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.
Reading more than 1 or 2 different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact impacts I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.
Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.
I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.
Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.
I may look like I’m timing stuff, but I just like to watch the clock run. Track each other’s prep.
Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs . Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event, but I won't intervene against a shell you're winning.
I will vote for kritikal args if you win/extend role of the ballot :-)
Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K.
Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership
I'm a lay judge. So speak clearly and slowly.
Put Me on the Email Chain: Cjaswill23@gmail.com
Experience: I debated in College policy debate team (Louisville WY) at the University of Louisville, went to the quarterfinals of the NDT 2018 , coached and judged high school and college highly competitive teams.
Policy Preferences: Debate is a game that is implicated by the people who play it. Just like any other game rules can be negotiated and agreed upon. Soooooo with that being said, I won't tell you how to play, just make sure I can clearly understand you and the rules you've negotiated(I ran spreading inaccessible arguments but am somewhat trained in evaluating debaters that spread) and I also ask that you are not being disrespectful to any parties involved. With that being said, I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make sure there is a clear impact calculus, clearly telling me what the voters are/how to write my ballot. Im also queer black woman poet, so those strats often excite me, but will not automatically provide you with a ballot. You also are not limited to those args especially if you don't identify with them in any capacity. I advise you to say how I’m evaluating the debate via Role Of the Judge because I will default to the arguments that I have on my flow and how they "objectively" interact with the arguments of your opponent. I like narratives, but I will default to the line by line if there is not effective weighing. Create a story of what the aff world looks like and the same with the neg. I'm not likely to vote for presumption arguments, it makes the game dull. I think debate is a useful tool for learning despite the game-structure. So teach me something and take my ballot.
Other Forms of Debate: cross-apply above preferences
I am a relatively new parent debate judge. I have judged more LD than PF.
I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources.
I am skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good explanations and sound reasoning. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing.
I am a parent judge. Have judged about 30 PF rounds.
I value logic and coherence.
I prefer a small number of clear, well articulated arguments over a list of arguments covering every aspects.
Don't speed, you may lose me.
Be nice in crossfire.
Hi I am a parent, and I do not have much experience. Here’s some advice from my daughter.
1. She’s your generic parent/lay judge, so keep the speed low and don’t use debate jargon.
2. My mom is a very logical person, so explain all claims and numbers because otherwise they’re just random statements that she has no reason to believe.
3. Be polite to each other (including your partner) even if you think they’re outrageously wrong. Yelling at them will not get you anywhere and it makes her dislike you more.
Please just be respectful and appreciative in general, she really tries her best to fairly judge the round!
*seating: Pro on her left side, Con on the right and please have the first speaker of each team seated closer to her, this will help in organization and to ensure you get the correct comments.
its online debate, please start an email chain: email@example.com
I did PF for 4 years, graduated in 2019 from millard north (NE). currently coaching at Blake (MN).
I would call myself a flow judge. "tech > truth" unless the evidence that is being read is very misrepresented.
Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in every speech. There's no such this as sticky defense. Frontline & extend in 2nd RB. This means your impacts too! It takes two seconds to just mention your impact after frontlining.
you do not have to extend in 1st RB
I prefer the weighing done for me; as in a bunch of warrants, defense and turns will do nothing for me if they are not contextualized. I expect to hear why I should prefer your side with reference to warrants. I could maybe vote on something left off of FF, but I won't extend something from case/rebuttal to summary UNLESS it makes sense in the round (ie opponent brings it up again). Link weighing is always appreciated!
I do not flow cross-ex. if it's a new argument/warranting in CX, it should be in a speech
As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed (unless it will be very fast spreading) as long as you are clear. A speech doc will be well appreciated if you are speaking fast. I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous (ex: no shoe theory). Ks and shells both ok. I default to reasonability. Please note I am not an expert with theory, and again speech docs will help me understand more.
Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 1-2 min to find it or send it out. Also I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card. I know online debate means I cant enforce this too well so honor system.
About paraphrasing: It takes away from the education of the debate, I do hate it, and while I won't drop you (on face) for it, I won't like you any better if you give me 40 one lined "cards" in case or rebuttal. Plus it just takes away from the round when your opponent has to call for 10 cards because you read them too fast.
Overall, I try my best to make the right decision (but I'm nowhere near perfect). If you have ANY questions feel free to contact me (firstname.lastname@example.org) or ask me before/after round. Thank you!
I am a parent PF judge with 2 times judging experiences. I usually do my best to set aside my personal opinions or believes on the topic and try to be neutral and fair to both team, no matter which side you pick. What I look for are how well the preparation on both evidences/facts and presentations, effective arguments etc. I would take time count into consideration (don't go over the limit!). I am not a native English speaker, but have pretty good English, so slow down the speech and present clearly may help.
I am a parent judge. New to judging PF. Be considerate of my experience levels.
Time yourselves, I will not be timing.
Add me to an email chain, and send me full case + rebuttal docs for +0.5 speaks.
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.
Flow judge. Clean rounds are nice. Please have evidence. Please display critical thinking.
"All judging is comparative."
Glenbrooks: The flexible phrase "they don't warrant/tell you why/explain/contextualize/prove this is true" is intolerable. If your opponent has not sufficiently argued something, my flow reflects that. (This doesn't mean I'll drop arguments because I don't think they're sufficiently proven, it just means you asserting something isn't warranted does nothing.) If you want to point out the link is unproven, argue against it (which should be easy if they have no argument). Not "they never warrant why A causes B," but "A does not cause B because C."
I'll evaluate anything if it's respectful, follows rules, and engages well. Oakton '20 (four years PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact through facebook, email@example.com (for chains, firstname.lastname@example.org).
1. Respect others, be equitable, use anonymous opt-in content warnings before any speech where they might be necessary.
2. For prep, if nobody's timer is running, stay unmuted. Verbally or visually signal your start and stop.
3. I won't flow off docs, I won't flow overtime (I'll hold up my hands to signal time's up), don't skip anything (including grand cross).
4. I (rarely) flip a coin to presume. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request. Average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.
1. Arguments are dropped if no responsive argument is in the next speech, including explicit concessions or links for theory violations, but I don't evaluate "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points for being dropped.
2. Arguments that are contested or weighed only exist in the back half if they're extended.
3. I will ignore "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" unless followed up with a counter-argument for why your side's right on that point (or if that content is there already).
4. Examples/precedent/empirics don't break clash unless you isolate the processes and compare them first.
The best way to improve is asking questions. Right after the round, after the tournament, or any other time - I am always open to help.
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!
He/Him - UC Berkeley 24
PF Paradigm (I haven't debated much APDA yet, so I'm still figuring out how to navigate it. That said, I'm the most reliable judging rounds under a utilitarian lens because that was the PF standard -- anything else will probably require more explanation for me to vote on. Other than that, I think most of the things in my PF paradigm follow closely in the way I adjudicate APDA rounds as well.)
200 wpm is best speed where i can flow majority of what is said
weigh weigh weigh PLEASE WEIGH
explain the logic/warrant behind things (so they make sense)
extend your argument each speech if you want me to vote on it
if you're first summary, you don't need to extend defense unless they frontline it.
2nd rebuttal needs to frontline turns or else they are considered dropped.
i like clarity of impact weighing... probability is a bit more sus but if you argue it well I'll vote on it
also judging isnt as fun as debating so sometimes i wont be like 100% in it, so if you think im flow, debate flay ya dig?
as for progressive arguments -- theory and kritiks especially -- I'm not too comfortable with them so please don't trust me to make the right decision
And here is a link to my ex-partners paradigm; he and I have very similar debate ideologies so anything I didnt cover here I'll likely defer to what is written on his.
Talk slowly or at a moderate pace for both cases and speeches.
Clarity is key - make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly. Don't use debate jargon as I probably won't be able to follow you.
Be respectful - don't be rude or passive-aggressive during cross.
Implicate and extend claims, warrants, and impacts. Don't assume the judge knows what you are talking about in every new speech, reiterate the most important concepts in the round that you want the judge to vote off of.
Reexplain all defense read in all speeches as it isn't extended if you don't explain the warranting from speech to speech.
WEIGH - Tell me why your arguments/links to those arguments matter more. If no weighing is done the round could go either way.
If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me. For online virtual debates, I would like you to disclose your case to me before the round actually starts and add me to the email chains.
I am a parent judge from Acton Boxborough Regional High School. I have judged Pubic Forum debate for three years.
I am not a native speaker so please do not spread and try to be as clear as possible. I also prefer arguments that are based on numbers and facts. And do not stretch too much when you talk about impact, you may need to be a bit more convincing if you are going to talk about something against common sense.
I am a parent judge.
I do not have prior knowledge on the topic, so please don't assume or make any jumps in logic in any part of the debate.
English is not my first language, so please SPEAK SLOW
Don't go line by line and give "debatey" rhetoric
Clear, narrative, and weighed speeches are your clearest path to the ballot.
-I will drop you if there is any racist, homophobic, etc. (also just be respectful in general)
No need to add me to the email chain.
Will keep this short because no one reads a 3 page paradigm:
PF at Oakton for 4 years; I will flow; keep speech speed limited; all offense must be weighed; cross-fire will count for speaks; no progressive arguments I won't understand; I prefer quality>quantity in responses
if u incorporate a Polo G "Rapstar" lyric, I will auto give u +1 speaks
Please ask me if you have further questions
I am a parent volunteer judge. have a few years of PF judge experience.
Show sufficient evidence and clear logic.
Speak clearly and no spreading.
I'm a lay judge and have 3 years of judging experience. I'll be taking notes throughout the round, so be as clear, slow, and understandable as possible. I'm mostly tech > truth, but I won't vote on frivolous/squirrely args. I also won't vote on theory, K's, etc. Please be respectful throughout the round. If you catch miscut ev, point it out in a speech and I'll take it into consideration. (written by daughter)
This is my first time judging IEs (I usually judge PF)!