For me, the best PF debates are ones in which debaters take the idea of a public forum seriously, presenting their arguments with such clarity that anyone would be able to follow them, even with no prior knowledge of the subject. This means not only having a coherent argument, but also making sure to define any topic-specific jargon from the very beginning, reading with expression, and enunciating words. Finally, I value debates in which all debaters display the utmost respect for one another, relying on the strength of their ideas rather than an intimidating or contemptuous attitude.

I am a parent PF judge, and a practicing attorney with more than 25 years of experience.

I believe a sound debate is about a fair, intelligible and intelligent dialogue. Speed reading off a computer screen or spreading is incompatible with such a process. Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Do not resort to speech docs. Make your case orally.

I flow arguments and strictly rely on my flowsheet. While I do not take note of points made/unmade in crossfire, I pay careful attention to astute questions and answers. Please bring up crossfire points that you would like me to flow in a subsequent speech. I am persuaded by well-structured, logical and linked arguments that are honestly supported by key pieces of evidence.

In addition to making your case, you must meaningfully engage with your opponents' case. The team advancing a contention must rejoin the issue and tell me why the opposing team's rebuttal/counter/block does not work.

In crossfire, please avoid questions with long preambles.

While, for the most part, I don't get into the weeds with cards and evidence, I may on occasion call for a piece. Teams should feel free to assail each other's evidence during the debate.

Please do not use debate jargon.

I do not like theory and K's. Hew to the topic of the day.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause.

Enthusiasm for, intensity, and passion regarding the proposition you are espousing is welcome. Discourtesy or aggression against your opponents is not.

Tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in crossfire is always delightful.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. Further, the final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (akin to writing my RFD for me - pros of your case and cons of your opponent's.) Lastly, all arguments and evidence that are in the final focus must have been in the summary and no new arguments in the summary speech - it is a matter of fairness.

Happy debating!

I am a parent judge. When presenting your arguments, claims, evidence, and warrants should be stated clearly and in an organized manner. Please, speak clearly and at a conversational pace, or I will not be able to flow your arguments. Do not assume I will understand if you use jargon. Show respect and do not talk over your opponents in the crossfire. I prefer speakers to crystalize their extensions at the end of the round and expose any major inconsistency your opponent makes. Finally, I am looking for clear impacts on your claims.

I'm an inexperienced lay judge. Please speak clearly and be respectful to your opponents.

In general, I am a lay/tech judge, more so on the tech side.

Background:

I am the wife of the Head Coach of Parliamentary Debate at the Nueva School.

I debated Parli in college, but it's been a few years since then, so it may not be the best idea to have a heavy-handed K debate in front of me if it's not crystal clear.

My background is in Mechanical Engineering and I specialized in nanotechnology. I'm finishing law school in the Spring of 2021. Please keep this in mind. Don't let any constitutional arguments get out of hand. I won't intervene, but It will definitely not benefit you to misapply the law. I'm specialized in Intellectual Property (Copyright, Trademark, Patent, trade secret) and am versed in AI law, Data Privacy law, International Law, China/Japan IP Law, Constitutional Law, etc.

ON THE LAY VS. FLOW/ TECH FIGHT: Both Lay (Rhetorical, APDA, BP, Lay) and Tech (Flow, NPDA, Tech) can be called persuasive for different reasons. That is, the notion that Lay is persuasive and Tech is something else or tech is inherently exclusionary because it is too narrowly focused on the minutiae of arguments is frankly non-sense, irksome, and dismissive of those who don’t like what the accuser does. I think the mudslinging is counter-productive. Those who do debate and teach it are a community. I believe we ought to start acting like it. I have voted for tech teams over lay teams and lay teams over tech teams numerous times. One might say that I do both regularly. Both teams have the responsibility to persuade me. I have assumptions that are laid out in the paradigm. I am always happy to answer specific or broad questions before the round. I do not want to hear complaints about arguments being inaccessible just because they are Ks or theoretical. Likewise, I do not want to hear complaints that just because a team didn’t structure their speeches in the Inherency, Link, Internal Link, Impact format those arguments shouldn’t’ be allowed in the round.

Tech over truth. I will not intervene. Consistent logic and completed arguments are the things that are important to me. Rhetorical questions are neither warrants nor evidence. Ethos is great and I’ll mark you on the speaker points part of the ballot for that, but the debate will be won and lost on who did the better debating.

Evidence Complications: All evidence is non-verifiable in Parli. So, I can’t be sure if someone is being dishonest. I would not waste your time complaining about another teams’ evidence. I would just indict it and win the debate elsewhere on the flow. However, there are things that I can tell you aren’t good evidence: WIKIPEDIA, for example. Marking and naming the credentials of your sources is doable and I will listen to you.

Impacts are important and solvency is important. I think aff cases, CPs, Ks should have these things for me to vote on them. If the debate has gone poorly, I highly advise debaters to complete (terminalize) an impact argument. This will be the first place I go when I start evaluating after the debate. Likewise, inherency is important. If you don’t paint me a picture of a problem(s) that need solving, should I vote for you? No, I shouldn’t. Make sure you are doing the right sorts of storytelling to win the round.

I flow POI answers.

Basically, I will vote for anything if it’s a completed argument. But, I don’t like voting on technicalities. If your opponent clearly won the holistic flow, I’m not going to vote on a blippy extension that I don’t’ understand or couldn’t summarize back to you simply.

Speaker points:

BE NICE AND PROFESSIONAL. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters WILL be punished on speaker points for being rude (beyond the normal flare of intense speeches) or abusive. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Counter Plans:

Delay CPs and Consult CPs are evil, but I will vote for them.

The CP needs to be actually competitive. You also need a clear CP text. Actual solvency arguments will be much rewarded and comparative solvency arguments between the CP and the Plan will be richly rewarded. I don’t think you have to have a DA. You can win the debate with a straight up “my solvency is better” argument.

DAs:

Uniqueness does actually matter. No, Trump has not rendered all war or diplomacy impacts moot. Simplicity is your friend. Signpost what is what and have legitimate links. Give me a clear internal link story. TERMINALIZE IMPACTS. This means someone has to die, be dehumanized, etc.. If the other team has terminalized impacts and you don’t, very often, you are going to lose.

Links:

Links of omission are vexing. There is almost always a way to generate a link to your K based on something specifically in the aff case. Please put the work in on this front.

Case:

I love case debate, a lot. Terminal defense probably isn’t enough to win you the debate. But defensive arguments are necessary to build up offensive ones in many cases. Think hard about whether what you’re running as a DA might be better served as a single case turn. Please be organized. I flow top of case and the advantages on a separate sheet.

I am a lay judge. Let's have fun.

I'm a parent judge in my third year of judging debate. Please do not spread or use excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly, focusing on clarity and quality of argument over quantity. Keep your delivery organized and oriented toward a first-time listener of the topic.

Support assertions with evidence, providing context or relevance as necessary. Beyond making your case, please respond directly to your opponent's arguments. Highlight areas of contrast and points you believe to be particularly favorable to your cause. Passionate engagement is fine, but please take care to be civil and respectful.

Present a clear summation of key points made (and not made by your opponents), and why your side should prevail.

Finally, I'm not interested in Theory arguments.

I look forward to hearing you.

Lay judge with limited experience.

Suggestions for contestants: Be respectful, stick to the facts, watch the timer.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

I am a parent judge, and this is my first season judging Public Forum. I've previously judged Lincoln-Douglas Debates and prior to that in Parliamentary Tournaments. I'd prefer if you refrained from spreading, because I feel it is not suited to the virtual format we find ourselves in this year. I value hearing your arguments and contentions presented clearly and with conviction. I appreciate good clash as long as it's done respectfully.

I’m a lay judge and the parent of a current debater. I have debated in the past, and I have judged parliamentary and LD debates recently. It would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will vote on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to listen to each other and respond to the arguments you are hearing. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful while still showing their arguments to be superior. It is important to me that you explain logically why your impact will happen. It is important to me that you understand the topic and that you try to persuade me that you believe in your argument.

Thank you and good luck!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Excellent debaters speak slowly, clearly and with good organization to their presentation.

Speak in plain English and avoid debate speak. Do not "resolve to negate" (no one says that in real life); tell me why I should find that the proposition is wrong or unwise (or the converse).

If you cite to an authority, make it clear what the authority is and why that authority is reliable. For example, it is not "Higgins 26 says". Rather, it could be: "As former Assistant Secretary of Defense John Higgins said in his Foreign Affairs article of _____."

You do not have a "card". You have evidence or opinions described by a third party source.

Be respectful to each other; do not interrupt during crossfire. If you ask a question, allow the opponent(s) to answer. Refer to public officials by their title and with respect in a way that no one knows your politics. For example, refer to them as President Trump, President Obama and President Biden.

If you say your opponents did not respond to your third contention (debate speak!) then make clear what that contention (better referred to as "point", "reason", "premise" etc.) is. The same holds true if you are addressing one of their points.

It is important that I be able to track the organization and logic flow of your arguments. I do that for the purpose of determining overall persuasiveness, not to create a checklist of everything that must be "covered". If there is a major point that I believe is unpersuasive based upon the totality of the arguments, then not every sub-point or sub-argument needs to be addressed. I am definitely not a fan of spreading, it generally shows weakness. To be clear though, if there is a strong argument that is not rebutted, that will weigh heavily in the determination of the winner.

Saying less but in a clear manner is far more important and effective than saying more in a way that cannot be understood.

Stand erect, and make eye contact with the judge(s) and note their reactions. Read my reactions to see if you are going too fast or speaking too softly. I do not care if you yell at me if that is what it takes for you to be loud enough to be heard -- and understood.

If you would like to e-mail me, use: owen.carragher@clydeco.us.

Most importantly:

HAVE FUN AND LEARN EACH TIME.

Hi There,

I am a novice judge with a freshman high schooler who is also a novice on a Debate and Speech Team. I am looking forward to learn from everyone and to hear your positions on various issues. Please speak in a clear and concise voice, and at at reasonable conversational speed. This will help me focus and listen well to your arguments. While I appreciate the debate forum, please keep your platform clean and respectful.

Thank you for giving me a place to grow. Good luck, Debaters!!

Salina

email: ericchen314@gmail.com

I did PF at Montgomery Blair for 2 years. I'm a first-year out at the University of Maryland.

TLDR: Speak slowly and clearly. I will vote for the team that is better dressed and smiles more.

Stuff about Baltics:

I don't know sh*t about the arguments. Please be clear and articulate; it'll help me follow along.

Presuming is not something I want to do on this topic, but I will flip a coin if I have to.

Some general comments:

1. Tech > Truth, but be reasonable. I am pretty stupid anyway, so a lot of stuff will probably fly.

2. Do not scoff at your opponents. No one else needs to know that you don't like what they're saying. If you want to make faces, do it off-camera.

3. Just be respectful and keep discussions civil. Do not intentionally try to embarrass your opponents. Make sure they're good with any sensitive topics in case.

4. Jokes and humor will be rewarded. Funny analogies will be crowned. Keep it tasteful, though.

5. Please do not argue debate rules in crossfire. I don't want to hear bickering about how debate should be interpreted and they never go anywhere. Just tell me the violation in the next speech. Furthermore, even if your opponents dropped something in a previous speech, they are allowed to ask questions about it in cross. Don't shut them down. If they do try to bring it up in speech, just let me know.

6. Always remember. Warrant + Empirics > Warrant or Empirics alone. Use this to your advantage if your opponents lack one of the elements. It works for me when it comes to contradicting evidence or arguments. Warrant > Empirics usually because numbers don't always tell the full story. However, if you're able to articulate why empirics matter more in your particular scenario, I may believe it. This is usually only true for clear-cut statistics.

7. I am not familiar with progressive debate. I've heard a couple of theory rounds but I won't be familiar with strange theory arguments. Don't try to read progressive arguments on inexperienced teams just to dominate them or get an easy win.

8. Blip no good. Dumping one-line responses and turns will not fly with me. I expect warrants. Don't try to expand on these one-liners in the back half of the debate.

9. Shall you send evidence quickly, I will be happy. Shall you send evidence slowly, I will be filled with rage. With that in mind, set up the evidence chain before the round, please. I shan't look at evidence unless commanded to. Evidence ethics is greatly important to me, so be sure you represent your evidence accurately.

10. Speed is probably fine, but it may become a burden on you if you push it. I cannot understand LD or Policy spreading, so please do not go anywhere near that fast.

11. Need ballot directive language. Tell me why I should vote for you and how I should evaluate the round. Also, tell me which link you're going for (if there are multiple). Signposting is incredibly important otherwise I may miss stuff.

12. Off-time roadmaps should be < 5 seconds unless you're doing multiple overviews or have a complicated order. If you read a roadmap, you better be darn sure you follow it. I should be able to flow your speech without needing a roadmap, so be organized nonetheless.

13. Nothing is auto-extended for me. Every speech should respond to the previous speech (other than case). Must have frontlines in 2nd rebuttal and defense extensions in summary. I expect weighing in 2nd Rebuttal and 1st Summary. It is quite difficult to frontline, read defense, and weigh in 2nd Rebuttal, so doing it well will get you good speaks. Good time management and organization will help you. Collapsing will, too.

14. I really don't think you need more than one offensive argument at the end of the round. Do it at your expense. If you go for a turn, make sure it's really flushed out starting from rebuttal. If you're able to weigh it early on and extend warrants through the entire debate, I will be impressed.

15. I will find it extremely difficult to vote for an argument I do not understand. Realize you know your arguments because you wrote it and know the cards and the warrants. I -- and your opponents -- will be hearing it for the first time. Try to make it easy to understand.

SPEAKS

It should be fairly easy to get good speaks from me. This is because I will grant you points for extremely simple things. Take advantage of this. Your speaks will start at a 28. Below a 27 means you did something incredibly wrong during the round (it will probably be like a 22).

1. Send cut cards to the chain before you finish your constructive speech for +0.5 speaks.

2. If you rhyme, your speaks will shine.

3. Make a good reference to Avatar the Last Airbender that actually makes fits in with your speech/cross-question for +0.3 speaks.

4. If you send a funny meme within the email chain before the start of the round, +0.2 speaks. Send an unfunny meme and you will get -0.3 speaks.

5. If you say "Iris Gupta is the best debater in the world" in any speech (or cross), +0.3 speaks. Reference "Blair Bebaters" for +0.2 speaks. If your opponents ask why you suddenly said these random things, you may not tell them that I directed you to do so in my paradigm. If you do, no speak bonus. This is your reward for reading this far and you do not want your opponents to receive the same bonus if they didn't read this.

6. Weighing link turns will make me smile at you favorably.

7. Speeches way over time will absolutely crush your speaks. I will give you a buffer to finish a concluding thought, but not a buffer for you to blippily extend a response after time.

8. If you can speak slowly and clearly while covering a lot of content, you will be rewarded. A lot of the time, it is more efficient than if you went super fast and hiccupped the entire way.

10. Numbering responses is a good organizational habit.

11. I like good rhetoric and fancy one-liners. Many flow rounds are super technical, but if you can do that while being persuasive, I will be very impressed and reward you with high speaks.

Examples: Our opponents are seeing Africa through rose-tinted lenses.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The devil is in the details

Credit to Horace Mann FR for this one: Take a second to admire your reflection because this round is crystal clear. I absolutely loved this, haha.

12. Be chill. Rounds shouldn't feel intimidating. Chill rounds will net everyone good speaks, even if your speeches are questionable.

13. Last one! If you insert "Big Chungus" into your speech in a way that makes sense and isn't at the expense of your opponents, +0.5 speaks. Saying it randomly is a no-go.

I am a parent judge and new to judging public forum, with only a little prior experience in judging. I did policy debate in high school 30 years ago, but have forgotten most things. I like organised arguments, and I need you to clearly signpost your arguments and weigh your evidence and arguments.

· Focus on making a sound, well structured argument – 2 or 3 strong points will go much farther than 5 or 6 weaker arguments

· Avoid acronyms and jargon that are not widely known – if you must use them, clearly define them

· Do not speak over one another – respect your opponents time – this is particularly important during online tournaments

· Speak clearly and at a regular, speaking pace

I am a parent of a current debater. I did not participate in debate growing up but I am an entertainment lawyer who negotiates all day long so I am skilled at making arguments and listening to and judging the arguments of others. This is only my second time judging a formal debate so I may not be as sophisticated at evaluating the debate as other judges and I be most appreciative if the debaters spoke at a more conversational speed. I will do my best to make sure I am judging based on the issues raised by each side so please try to compare your arguments to the arguments raised by the other team. Please be respectful to one another as you compete.

I am a parent of a current debater. I am fairly new to speech and debate, but I am very interested in current events. Since I am not a very experienced judge, it would be best if you do not talk much faster than conversational speed. I will make sure to the best of my ability to vote on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to compare your arguments to those made by your opponents. In my opinion, the best debaters are those that provide clear and articulate arguments, while being respectful to one another.

Here are some thoughts on my judging paradigm.

1) I am a parent judge, but with past debate experience (a long time ago)

2) You can speak quickly as long as you are clear and concise.

3) I appreciate signposting and clear organization.

4) Reminder: please weigh impacts for me.

5) Please be respectful and polite towards each other.

6) If a point isn't responded to in the next speech, I consider it dropped.

I’m a parent judge, and this is my fourth year in debate.

1. Please be clear about your warrants and impact (signpost).

2. Talk clearly and at a normal speed.

3. Keep track of your own time.

4. Off-time road maps aren’t required but are appreciated.

5. I will not judge off cross-ex.

6. Weighing is important to me.

7. Your summary and final focus should be paralleled. I will ignore any new points brought up in either and speaker points will be lowered.

8. Don’t be rude, disrespectful, or passive-aggressive to opponents.

9. Anything said that's homophobic, ableist, racist, etc. is going to result in an "L" for your ballot and lowered speaker points.

10. Have fun!

Lay Parent Judge & Lawyer. I've judged several local debate tournaments in the northeast. Please speak slowly. I trust you to properly keep your own time.

I am a parent judge but because of my favorite daughter's constant discussions regarding the septober topic, I do have some topic knowledge.

Somethings I look out for:

Clarity

Consistency

Collapsing

Extensions to FF

Weighing

Hey, my name is Sam! I debated on the GA circuit for 3 years and nationally for 2 (2014-2017), breaking even my senior year at ToC and Nationals. Since then, I have judged and coached for several programs. Weigh your arguments and their terminal impacts against your opponent's arguments and impacts in summary/final focus. Second-half cohesion is important, make sure the summary and final focus work well together. I will not vote off of anything that fails to be extended from speech-to-speech. I can follow most speeds you're used to, but please do your best to speak clearly. Be polite to each other and enjoy the learning experience: D.B.A.A!

I am a parent of a current debater. I was not a debater myself in high school or college. I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. Please do not hold me responsible for anything that doesn't get written down because you may be talking too fast. I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to weigh your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I believe that the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another! Please signpost through your speeches so that I can follow. I may not flow crossfires but I may take notes if there is an important point made. Most importantly, have fun!

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

Keep arguments logical and clear. Make sure they can be followed by someone who may not know about the topic, and ensure that you respond to your opponents' arguments just as clearly and respectfully as you propose your own arguments.

Email for email chains: ryleyhartwig@gmail.com

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

Paradigm

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

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

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

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

- Cx is binding.

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

I am the parent of a current debater. I was not a debater myself in high school or college. I am a new judge, so it would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I believe the best debaters are respectful to each other. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

I am a relatively inexperienced parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another while still showing their arguments to be superior to the arguments made by their opponents.

I am the parent of a current debater and have judged several online tournaments.

Please speak slowly and clearly, so I can follow your arguments. I will take notes as best I can and will vote on the main issues.

I appreciate clear analysis in your final focus as to why you should win this round. 

Be respectful of one another and add me to the email chain for evidence exchange using the email: hotzandrea@gmail.com.

Please do not present theory as I will not know how to best judge it.

Lastly, good luck!

I am a teacher of English. I am new to judging, but I have been trained.

I am a lay parent judge, and I prefer more traditional debates. I am pretty familiar with the topic.

I like debaters who are organized and have well-warranted arguments. Please make sure your arguments make logical sense. I also like debaters who take advantage of their prep time; don't stop speaking with a significant amount of time left.

I am not very familiar with more tech debate with kritiks, theory, etc, but I will still evaluate it but make sure you are overexplaining everything if you do read those. I am also not very good at evaluating spreading, and make sure you are clear in your speech.

Please email me the cases at jianhuny@gmail.com

Hey Y'all! Welcome to my paradigms:

Plan out your ideas: I will keep flow so please give me a roadmap of your contentions and stay organized.

Spicy arguments: If your aff or neg I'm open to hearing any argument as long as you can support your ideas

speeeeed: feel free to spread or talk as fast as you want. If I can't understand you I will let yall know by saying "slow down"

Online tourments: try to do a mic check before each round if you have headphones/mic that would be helpful ig you're in an echoey room.

Have Fun!

I have judged before but I still consider myself an inexperienced, or lay parent judge. I love listening to you debate issues of the world, but please do it at a conversational, rather than speedy, pace. I also think that respect for each other, and your views, is an important part of the debating environment.

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.

Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.

Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

This is my third year judging PF.

I am a practicing physician and can always appreciate a good debate.

I value organization and the use of credible evidence to support your arguments.

Speak clearly at an understandable pace and above all please be respectful of your opponents.

The email you can use to share evidence: rkap02@yahoo.com

Hello! I’m Pierina Katoanga, and I’m a parent of a Regis debater. I am a lay judge with no previous experience debating.

Please ensure that you speak clearly and slowly so that I have a better chance of following your arguments.

I’m not familiar with a lot of debate jargon, so please keep that a minimum. Similarly, I might not know a lot of topic-specific acronyms/shorthands, so it would be helpful to state the full name for ease of reference.

During crossfire, please refrain from talking over one another and be respectful; it should be back-and-forth.

For speeches, organization is important; make it clear what you’re responding to and what argument you’ll be using in the final two sets of speeches.

With regard to the use of evidence, I will not keep track of author names so please re-explain what the evidence itself says.

Lastly, I will repeat again: pacing and clear articulation of your delivery would be really helpful.

Thank you, and I wish you all the best!

I am a parent judge. I enjoy listening to PF debates. When not judging, I am a chemistry professor.

Please speak clearly. Assume I don't know anything about the topic. Quality is more important than quantity. Roadmapping and signposting help me follow your arguments. I am not the right judge for theory or progressive arguments.

Please note that my decision is based on what is said in the round. I do not read between the lines. I do not connect dots unless you do it.

Criteria for speaker point evaluation: (1) Cogency, (2) Mental agility (as demonstrated in rebuttal, frontlining, and crossfires), and (3) Civility.

For email chains: akawamur@gmail.com

Greetings to All,

I am a fairly new parent judge to the Public Forum debate. Few things below:

- Keep an eye on the time.

- Present in an orderly fashion.

- Speak slowly and clearly. If you are too fast I will miss what you are trying to say.

- Respect each other.

- In case you are planning on sharing your evidence please share them with me too.

- Relax and have a great round.

I wish each one of you all the best for todays tournament.

Wishing each one of you a Great Round and Happy Debating!

Speak slowly and clearly so I can understand your arguments; if I don't understand them, I cannot vote for you. Use only realistic arguments.

It's helpful when you frontline and give implications in your speeches. Make sure to weigh in summary and final focus with consistency.

Do not run theory or any type of progressive arguments.

Be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to listening to your round!

Most of my paradigm is copied from the GOAT Andy Stubbs.

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I'm ok with reading progressive arguments, but I'd prefer not. But if you want, please flesh out the arguments as much as you can. I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Time urself and ur opponents.

I don't care about cross. If you say something important, mention in speech.

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

PF specific:

-All defense you're going for needs to be extended.

-You have to frontline offense in second rebuttal

-I rarely call for evidence; if you don't have the warrant in the summary/final focus, I'm not going to call for the card and do the work for you

-If we're going to run theory... make sure it's warranted and, more importantly, merited.

***Speaker points include delivery, strategic decisions, conduct in the round, etc.

*** If you're second flight and the tournament is already running behind and you walk into the room and haven't flipped and pre-flowed, I am going to be annoyed

Pronouns: he/him

Hi, I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly! I have judged many pf rounds before, but I am still definitely not a flow judge. 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

-he adores clean signposting

-also he works in like biology/physics/medical related stuff and knows a lot abt pharma so be accurate lol or he'll know

Hello! My name is Tian. I am a lay judge and this tournament is my fifth time judging.

Please:

- do not spread, if you spread I will likely miss important information

- try not use debate jargon

- signpost when possible

- give an off-time roadmap before speeches

- implicate your responses

If you have any questions or would like to add me to an email chain, please contact me at ma_tian@yahoo.com

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in 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.

Technical Debate

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 mom of two five year olds 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.

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.

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

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!

This is my fourth year as a parent judge. I value clear and convincing arguments, both in the context of debate and my day job as a professor. I want debaters to interact respectfully, and I appreciate it when you don't talk too fast.

Hi! I am a parent judge. I like students to present cases that cover the the most pertinent arguments for a topic. The presentation should be clear and easy to follow, supported by strong evidence. The debaters should be active and make strong comments and responses during cross. Debaters should be respectful throughout. Clearly tell me in summary and final focus why your team has done the strongest job, be specific. Please weigh your arguments against your opponents! Good luck and have fun!

I am the parent of a current debater. I was not a debater myself in high school or college and currently work as a novelist. However, I did attend law school and practiced as a litigator for several years. As an inexperienced judge, however, it would be very helpful if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will not be able to properly weight arguments that I cannot hear. This will help me vote on the substance of the issues each side raises in the round. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another while still showing their arguments to be superior to the arguments made by their opponents.

I am the parent of a former Varsity Public Forum debater at Bronx Science, an intellectual property attorney, and former university professor of sociology and education. I hold degrees in biology, sociology, and the law. You should consider me a flay judge. I have judged over 80 rounds of PF debate and 8 rounds of speech competition, including at the Tournament of Champions (x2), Harvard (x2), Big Bronx (x2), Yale, Princeton, the Barkley Forum, Glenbrooks, and Apple Valley, among others.

I would appreciate your speaking at a reasonable pace to better enable me to understand your contentions and rebuttals. I value logical, well-warranted reasoning and analysis presented with clarity and precision. Signposting at the beginning of your speeches is also advised, especially during Summary and Final Focus. This will help me follow where you are going. Tell me clearly and precisely why I should vote for your side.

Finally, respect your opponents. Allow them to speak without constant interruption during Crossfire. I appreciate spirited advocacy but expect civility and decorum during the debate. Have fun!

Hi everyone. My name is Yash and I am a college student who did PF debate in high school. This is my first time judging and the first debate related thing I've done in 4 years, so I am a little bit rusty with the intricacies of rounds. I weigh the summaries and final focuses pretty heavily, so I would like you to put the points you think you've won and really tell me why you've won them in detail. The team with the bigger impacts/probability of those impacts will win.

I don't know very much about the topic, so make sure to explain everything in detail.

When refuting, be very specific with how your arguments clash against each other. I will, of course, only count an argument that is explicitly stated, so if I have to come up with my own conclusion, I will not be able to weigh it in.

Please be clear with how your evidence is important to the logic of your argument instead of just saying stats/numbers that don't make sense.

Overall, be respectful and kind to the other team, but also competitive. I'd like to keep these rounds kinda chill and fun for everyone. Good luck!

Hello, welcome to my paradigm! I debated PF for 4 years in high school in the National, TOC and State level. I also participated in a lot of speech events (extemp, impromptu, oratory).

Things I appreciate:

A. Current evidence along with an explanation of the argument in the debaters own words along with a crisp impact.

B. Good manners!

C. Turn on your camera on if it is an online tournament. Sit straight or stand up straight and make eye contact with the camera as you would if you were in person.

D. Roadmap before your speech (except for the first and last speeches)

E. Don’t forget to weigh your final arguments against your opponents in the final speech.

Things I don't appreciate

A. No counter plans. Not enough time in PF to debate that properly.

B. Have evidence available to provide to the other team quickly. Don’t explain it as you are handing it over. Have your partner give the evidence if you are about to speak.

C. Don’t be rude :)

I've judged since 2014.

Logic is as important as evidence.

Evidence is essential. I will ask for cards if I'm unsure about the evidence supporting a claim or whether the evidence has been used properly. I look for quality over quantity. Be clear about sources: What's the source? Who is the author? Don't say that a newspaper (e.g., Washington Post) is the author. That's where the article was published. Don't just say an institution (e.g., Harvard) is the author. That's where the author works. The author is a person. Say who she/he is. If you think her background is important (e.g., former Secretary of State), you can say so.

Announce a weighing mechanism, especially in summary and final focus. Which arguments are most important? If you don't give me a weighing mechanism, I will be forced to give the win to the side whose arguments flow through. I'd much rather give the win to the side with the best arguments on the most important issues. Tell me what's most important and why

Avoid spreading. Focus on your most important arguments. Engage the other side on those arguments. If the other side raises less important issues, explain why and then return to the most important arguments.

Hi - judge's daughter writing his paradigm for him.

Arguments: He's a pretty no-BS guy - if you're running a super niche argument chances are he isn't going to buy it unless it's really well warranted. He really likes the obvious (stock) arguments and you'll find the easiest way to his ballot is the most apparent reasons why to affirm/negate or really well warranted niche stuff.

Speed: He has a low tolerance for fast speed and you're going to lose him if you get anywhere close to spreading - talk at a pace like you would in a conversation. If you need to read your case any faster, send him the link so he can flow it properly.

Flowing: I did teach him how to flow :) so he will be actively flowing! He's less of an impact voter and more of a logic voter - this isn't to say quantified impacts don't help but don't just yell random numbers at him. General piece of advice for all debaters.

Postrounding: PLEASE don't postround him - it's rude and disrespectful. Public forum was made for the public so if he couldn't understand your argument it's your fault, not his.

Speaks: His "average debater" is a 28. He will add or subtract points if he found you to be worse or better than the 'average'.

Anyway, good luck debating and have fun!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

I am a second-time parent-judge with a child at Bronx Science.

If you speak faster than I can listen, it won't benefit your argument :)

Naturally, I value both evidence and analysis, but I believe I would more heavily weigh the analysis.

I tend to consider a claim without a rebuttal from the other side to be true (for purposes of the debate).

Please be respectful of your opponents, if not their position.

I am a former debater who focuses on plain speaking and argumentation.

Simply stating evidence will not suffice to win you the round. Please use your evidence intelligently and weave it into your argumentation.

This is a debate so whoever can most effectively argue the point will win the round. Once again, simply stating evidence will not win you the round though it is certainly important.

If you want me to weigh evidence please continue to use the evidence throughout your argumentation. If you fail to respond to evidence continually used by the other team throughout their argumentation then I will presume it to be true and flow it to your opponent.

Please be mindful of your time and respectful during crossfire.

Good luck.

Note to debaters - I'm a PARENT JUDGE, not a debate professional.

A few requests to help me manage this fairly....

- please signpost as you present.

- please be sure to include comparatives.

- please don't include new evidence in Final Summary.

- please don't include new responses in Final Focus.

- please talk at a comprehensible pace. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit. No spreading, no FedEx commercials.

- please no theory games or "K"s. They will likely confuse/frustrate/annoy me and dramatically lower your chances of winning.

Good luck!

My name is Sapna Palla. I am a lay/parent judge and not a seasoned debater or debate judge - so not a great judge for spreading strategies. I encourage you to speak slowly, loudly and logically so that I may follow your arguments and properly account for them. To me, good reasoning supported by solid evidence is what wins. I believe that talking over your opponents or treating them in a disrespectful fashion detracts from your argument and from the high level of discourse we all seek.

I’m a parent judge. My child is new to debate and I am a new and inexperienced judge. I am a practicing corporate attorney and always appreciate a good debate, but am not a debate professional. Please speak clearly and at a normal speed and keep track of your own time. Good luck and have fun!

I appreciate that there is a certain speed to PFD, but that being said, there is some element of communication that gets lost with a mile a minute spreading, especially if your opponent can't handle the same pace. If you go too fast and I cannot flow then you drop those contentions and evidence.

I am a parent judge and am new to judging debate rounds. As a result of this I may not be familiar with certain debate terms, so please bear this in mind when speaking. Please avoid spreading and make your arguments as clear as possible.

I'm a recent PhD from Binghamton University in Political Science (pronouns are she/her). Research focus is in American Politics (identity and pol behavior in particular) but you can safely assume I have at least average substantive knowledge on the topic even if it isn't americanist. I'm currently working for the intelligence wing of a company focusing on the digital economy. I was an extemper, normally judge PF and LD (or parli congress), occasionally judge speech. I'm comfortable with circuit debate, but not super involved anymore.

Update for virtual nat circuit: take the spread from an 8 to a 6.5 , share your case doc, slow on theory. When you aren't sharing a doc, don't spread. If I don't catch it, it won't go on my flow.

Add me to the thread: tara.s.riggs@gmail.com

LD

- I can (and frequently do) hate your arguments but still vote you up on them. You need to have a legitimate warrant and be reasonable, but you need to win the flow and some times that means winning on greyhound racing in space or something absurd. I'm inclined tech>truth but warrants still matter when I weigh rounds.

-I've grown to really appreciate a good K. You need to be really explicit in the argument. I am familiar with the lit on feminism/identity/racism, but I am an empiricist at heart not a political theorist. The more obscure your K is, the more your explanation and depth matters. I won’t vote off of theory that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. If you can't explain your K, you shouldn't be reading it. I'm most familiar with identity based K's and set col.

-If we end up together and you are dead set on running a CP, don't make it a PIC. I will not evaluate it. I won't flow it. You just wasted x amount of time. PICs are inherently abusive. This is the one place I will intervene on the ballot.

-I like theory rounds.

-I also like Theory rounds.

PF

- I flow but I am more relaxed on tech>truth. I am more inclined to believe an impactful truth than blippy tech. Don't consider me tech>truth if your plan is to run spark or argue climate change/ extinction/economic collapse good.

- I need to see a strong link level debate. You NEED to materialize your links if you want to access impacts. Don't make me question the links.

- Make your impacts clear. Often times, rounds come down to impacts.

- Plans and CPs in PF are inherently against the event( and against NSDA rules). I will not flow them. You may win them, but I'm not flowing it and will not consider it in round. Strike me if this is your strategy. PF isn't Policy.

- I like K's but stock K's are lazy. Don't run a capitalism K just to run a capitalism K. If you are running K, you need to be able to explain what happens if the alt is true. Weigh whether or not you want to spend the time on the K given how short speeches are in PF.

- First summary should extend defense- but does not need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, first summary MUST extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

-I do not flow CX-anything that comes up in cross-examination that you want considered in the round needs to be mentioned in your speeches.Don't be rude in grand cx. That's my one problem with gcx. I have given low point wins because a team was rude in gcx.

Parli

-Be strategic. If GOV frames the resolution in a way that makes it impossible to debate, go for theory. If OPP let's GOV slide on something obviously egregious, run with it. I'm looking for the team that best plays the game here.

** If your strategy is to frame the debate where OPP must defend slavery, sexism, homophobia, invasion, etc. I will drop you. There has to be a reasonable limit. I'm non-interventionist until you make someone defend something truly abhorrent. It doesn't show you are a great debater, it shows you are a scuzzy person.

********Live and let debate BUT if you are openly sexist, racist, abelist,xenophobic, homophobic, or insert discriminatory adjective here you WILL lose the round.********

I am a Parent judge with 3 years of tournament experience. I do not flow cross and expect a civil exchange. Do not spread or I will not understand you. Emphasis on Lagos and Ethos in arguments weighted more.

I am a parent judge and have volunteered for both speech and debate competitions. Please speak clearly, cover all your arguments, and do not go too fast. Keep your cards ready and promptly present them when asked. I will not be timing and I let the teams be responsible so that I can focus on the rounds. For your final focus, the summary will be very important for scores and my decision. Good luck and have a great round!!!

I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive.

Thank you and looking forward to a great debate!

I am the parent of a current debater. I was not a debater myself in high school or college, but I have been a litigator since the 1980’s. I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you did not talk too much faster than conversational speed, but please don't feel too constrained.

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks

MOST IMPORTANT: if you want me to evaluate ur turns then u must do a 180 degree turn every time you read one. (this is a joke but I will boost ur speaks for it)

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

if ur lazy, read the bolded parts

tech > truth

go as fast as you want, but send me your speech doc

email chain: tessica213@gmail.com or selvaganesan.tessica@gmail.com

give me an explicit extension of your link, internal link, and impact in BOTH your sum. and ff; otherwise, I won't vote on that arg

extend all warrants b/c i wont flow ur argument otherwise

if you want me to vote on a turn, weigh it like any offensive ev

frontline all responses against arguments that you want to go for in 2nd reb., cuz if you don't frontline an argument that you go for, and your opponents extend it, I'll evaluate it as conceded

what i look for in a debate:

• weigh and implicate turns as soon as u can
• in sum. and ff, extend warrants for links, defense, and turns. i dont flow extended taglines
• keep track of ur prep time; I won't stop u if u go over ur prep. but I might tank ur speaks
• signpost, go line-by-line, and gimme an off-time roadmap
• call TKO
• make it easy for me to pull the trigger by extending whatever u want in summary. i won't vote for a team that ghost extends stuff into ff.
  
  • collapsing is NOT a must. if u think u can cover both sides of the flow adequately and weigh, then go for it
• i want clash (obv not when ur opponent clean concedes another contention in rebuttal, but yea).

Weighing:

• Weighing is not "EcOn OuTWeIGhS LiVeS On ScOpE & MaGnITuDe hEhEhE." Do an actual impact calc (not on scope, reversibility, timeframe, etc). i don't mind traditional weighing, but u have a better chance of getting my vote w/ pre-reqs and short-circuits.
• Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact.
• link weigh and meta-weigh.
  • link-weigh when u and ur opponent's impacts r the same through strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability, etc
• disguise link turns (i.e. if you are winning an econ argument and you conceded a war link, just give reasons why a bad economy link turns war). don’t read new substantive link turns as “weighing” tho - there’s a difference
• respond to weighing; ill evaluate it as conceded otherwise
• clarity of impact is NOT weighing
• "Probability" is also not weighing on the impact level. do strength of link weighing, but ultimately "probability weighing" is just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal.

Ks / Trix:

• not the best judge for this b/c I have never watched them get run.
• i do understand the stock stuff (securitization, cap, etc) for Ks, so just warrant whatever you're running.

Theory:

• substance > theory; if you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason b/c it's not a default strategy
• the shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp).
• default to rvi unless told otherwise duh
• Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why.
• weigh your shell vs your opponent's shell, the interp vs the counterinterp, etc to help make my decision easier
• I default toreasonability so that ppl can respond to theory like it's a regular argument. i wont drop anyone for adequately responding to a shell, despite not knowing what a counterinterp is
• If reading theory, structure it properly.
• If ur responding to theory and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 on you, just treat the theory arg logically

the mini theory lesson --> only read this if u dont know how to handle theory or what it is

• the difference - substance is the thing that u usually deal w/; theory is an argument abt whether or not certain args are legitimate
• there are 3 parts to a shell: violation (what did the team ur running theory against do wrong), interpretation (what do you suggest should have been done), and standards/voters (why are they — as in ur opponent — doing whatever they did bad?)
• sometimes it's ok to not have an interpretation b/c I can assume that it's to "not do whatever ur opponent did"
• you have to win ur interpretation n standards while responding to ur opponents interp n standard to win theory
• if the paragraph format makes more sense for u than the shell, then run that b/c it's lowkey better
• I have to see who won the theory debate and then evaluate substance

Framework

• your case has to fall under ur framework. super obv but ppl get it wrong
• if ur against a framework, either gimme a counter-framework or link-in. regardless, u have to answer it.

Other stuff:

• i'll call for cards if i just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or your warrant for the card changes in round
• debates can get heated, but it's not that deep
• if u call for a card and ur opponent takes > 45 secs to get it, then steal prep
• add-ons - nope. u can spread so just read ur 12 contentions in the first speech, and don't read ur add-on as a turn.
• I won't flow over time unless it's under 10 secs
• I literally do not know what the progressive argument hierarchy is, so tell me! if the round has 2 tricks, a non-t k-aff, and disclosure, tell me which order to evaluate these things in, or I don't want to hear it when I do it incorrectly.
• paraphrase ur ev. however, when it gets called for, u better have it carded (tagline, citation, and the actual highlighted part of the card)

Speaks:

will start everyone at 28 (idk why; just what i have been doing recently)

buy me snacks (Reese's, Cheetos (the hot ones), Chobani - Mango flavored, etc): +1

say "game over" twice in a row in ff lol: +0.3

twirl around while using turns: +0.4

give me asian food recs (i like eating; its not b/c I'm hungry all the time but b/c my mouth feels lonely): +1.1

I used to stalk paradigms to learn more about debate and just not stalk ppl in general. lmk that u have read my paradigm and I'll boost ur speaks :)

Hello! My name is Yaseen (he/him) and I'm a sophomore at GW, majoring in finance and economics. I specialize in Congressional Debate, Public Forum Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Original Oratory. I've also competed at a multitude of nat-circuit tournaments in high school (notably Nats, TOC, ASU, etc). Below are my paradigms for PF + Congress.

PF:

-I flow

-I care about both speaking and content, but I weigh content more

-Good constructives should have clear claims, warrants, and impacts

-For rebuttals, I care most about making sure you're responsive to the argument. I appreciate args that interact with what your opponent's advocacy is

-Summaries should break down to me what matters in the round, any flaws your opponents have made, and why I should sign your ballot for your side

-Similar to summaries, I expect more weighing and impacting in final focus. Don't just tell me that your opponent is wrong. Show me and explain to me why that's the case.

-I do evaluate cross-ex. This time should be used to precisely point out flaws in your opponents' cases, clarify any misconceptions, or ask an important question that'll be important later. Please answer the question that's asked of you and don't try to squirm around it (I can tell haha).

-Be respectful. I'm totally cool with being aggressive, but there's a fine line between assertiveness and belligerence. I don't tolerate disrespect.

If y'all have any questions, please reach out and I'm more than happy to provide in-depth feedback! Best of luck! :)

Congress:

-I'm a sucker for good introductions. An intro and outro is wonderful for Congress speeches

-Please have warrants and impacts for your claims. They should be explicit and they should be articulated in a manner that forces me to care about x arg

-I don't care when you present your speech. You should be contributing to the round and your speech shouldn't be a regurgitation of something I heard earlier. I value a great constructive, but I also value a crystal that succinctly breaks down the round for me

-Congress is a blend of speech and debate. Both your content and presentation matters; however, I weigh content more purely because I believe logos is so important in a Congress round

-Please clash. If you're speaking after the first cycle and I don't hear a lot of clash, I'll be very disappointed and sad.

-I rank presiding officers. If you value brevity and equity, you're a superstar.

-Cross-ex is really important to me. If you point out clear flaws in your peers' argumentation, you'll receive bonus points and a higher ranking from me.

-Be respectful. I'm totally cool with being aggressive, but there's a fine line between assertiveness and belligerence. I don't tolerate disrespect.

email: yaseennaveedshah@gmail.com

I have experience judging PF, LD, and Speech at national-level tournaments. For PF: 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.

Lay Parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and explain why I should vote for you.

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.

GOOD LUCK!!!

I am a parent judge and not a seasoned debater or debate judge - so not a great judge for spreading strategies. I encourage you to speak slowly, loudly and logically so that I may follow your arguments and properly account for them. To me, good reasoning supported by solid evidence is what wins. I believe that talking over your opponents or treating them in a disrespectful fashion detracts from your argument and from the high level of discourse we all seek.

I'm a Special Education teacher and assistant coach for Princeton High School's Speech & Debate Team.

Email: adibafsyed@gmail.com

General:

1. I'm a lay judge.

2. Don't be offensive. If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

3. Signpost & be clear.

4. No spreading - If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25 speaks. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will get a 25 as well. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.

5. LD - set up email chain before the round and I’ll add .5 to your speaks

Remember - Speech & Debate is about having fun! If you’re the only person in the room having fun, then you just lost a round.

Good luck!

Send case to email chain before your speech & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: joytaw@gmail.com

My wifi sucks, it'll make it a lot easier for everyone to have at least speech docs prepared for your speeches - lowkey required for rebuttal, others optional but preferred.

I debated in HS but it's been a while (class of 2020) -- I can understand tech but prefer to be treated like a flay. Semi-ok with speed in the first half of the debate if there are speech docs (still pref not going super fast) + No spreading in second half of the round pls. If you do, I guess I'll still evaluate it but it will only be what I can catch + your speaks will be dropped.

Lay ----- Flay --X--Tech

Public Forum:

General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.

Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like. I also don't care for disclosure theory.

Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.

- keep track of your own times pls

- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves

- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.

- Frontline if you're second rebuttal

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.

- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)

- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.

- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)

- Collapse

- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)

warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh but make it comparative

in summary and final focus

pls thank u

Policy update:

I'm familiar with policy debate, as in I've judged it before, but I never competed in it. I competed in public forum so keep that in mind when you're debating. Aka:

- don't go too fast, if you are gonna spread - send me a doc

- If you're running theories or Kritiks that are not intuitive -- please EXPLAIN THEM FULLY or it will not go your way. Also if it involves smth sensitive - please include a content warning.

- Time yourselves - I might do it on the side too but I want you guys to keep track of it yourselves. Especially prep or opponent's prep.

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

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.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

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 uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

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.

SPEAKING PREFS

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 only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

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 tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

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.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

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

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

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

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

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 240 words per minute works). Otherwise, I can only listen but not keep up flowing. If I missed anything, it's on you. If it's the first round early morning or the last round late night, slow down a little (maybe 200 words per minute).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-substance:

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

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

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

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

First time judge, Attorney for 10 years:

- Speed: talking fast is not best but ok, but no spreading.

- Warrant: the most important thing is a clear logical chain of reasoning to convince me with supporting evidence (e.g., no hypothesis or fake evidence)

- Flow: Don't drop your opponents' contentions - address them briefly but move on with your points.

- Weighing: bring those up in both summary and FF with warrant that you want me to vote on.

Hi! I'm a parent judge of a Bronx Science debater. I AM A LAY JUDGE.

I am going to be flowing but PLEASE speak slow so that I can do so. Around 700ish word cases is a good speed

Email: klyellen@yahoo.com

My daughter helped me write this:

What will help me flow your side better:
Don't blip over tags.
- When Front-lining: Quickly re-explain their response and which of your contentions it is on before front-lining it.
- When Extending: Please re-explain your argument in a style that will help a layperson better understand it (it sometimes takes me hearing the argument explained more than once to completely understand it)

I will not vote off on anything said in cross but I will be listening, Explaining something well in cross could make or break whether I understand your argument in other words cross will help me better understand the arguments made in round.

I will only call for evidence if you tell me to in speech or if it is important to my decision

I will not evaluate K’s or Theory such as paraphrase or disclosure. However, If something makes you feel unsafe in the round that would normally require theory, tell me in a speech and tell me how I should evaluate it

Let me know if there are any accommodations you need, this should be a safe space for all!

Most of all Have Fun :)

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

In your speech, please don't forget that you are speaking to an audience and the greatest arguments in the world won't help you if I can't understand what you're saying. For example, some issues include speaking so fast, lacking clear structure to arguments, mumbling, speaking in a low voice.

The best debaters can respond to the actual arguments the other team is making, while making their own argument.

On crossfire, craft questions that will get the other side to agree with your argument or a portion of the argument. Don't ask open ended questions that allow your opponent to speak endlessly. Ask specific pointed questions. If your opponent asks you a specific quesiton, don't give one word answers.