My Email: isaacappelbaum404@gmail.com

My Origin Story:

Hi! I'm Isaac. I am a freshman at The George Washington University in D.C. and I did Congressional Debate for four years as a student at Pennsbury High School in Pennsylvania. I competed extensively on the national circuit obtaining 11 bids to the TOC and placed/finaled at tournaments like Harvard, Princeton, Emory, Durham, UPenn, and Villiger.

Now that I've given some of my background as a competitor I can discuss what that means in terms of what I like to see as a judge. In my opinion, this can best be summarized like this;

Congress:

stick to 2 points

don't speak too fast

try to get to 2:50-3 minutes

arguments flow in linear way and flow broad to narrow with a terminalized impact (human beings should be your impact)

use refutation after 1st cycle

I like well developed arguments

Stick to legislation what does the legislation do

LD:

Don't spread

cite good sources

present links clearly

PF:

Don’t spread

use good sources

arguments flow in linear fashion

give me a human reason to vote for your side

no theory please

I'm a flow judge and have debated 4 years of PF at Trinity School. Went to TOC '21.

Defense is not sticky - if you want defense to flow through, you need to extend it in every speech. That said, if first summary extends defense that wasn't frontlined in second rebuttal, second summary is too late to bring up a new frontline.

Screaming "Smith 16" is not an extension. If you want me to vote on something, you need to extend the warranting as well as the evidence.

I don't flow cross - if something important is said during cross, make sure to bring it up in a later speech.

Talk as fast as you want as long as you're clear (but I find that when people talk fast, their warranting suffers; I will not vote off blippy warranting).

No theory unless you actually, genuinely care about the issue (see TOC finals 2021 for a good example).

Bonus points for any jokes made during speeches :)

I am a college freshman who has competed in PF and CON throughout my high school debate career. Here are some things that I ask of those who I am judging:

1) Please be kind to your competitors (If I feel that the debate has turned hostile I will take that into account within my ranking)

2) Please speak clearly and do not spread (This is especially important when competing online for if connectivity becomes an issue it may be hard for me to follow the argument or for your peers to debate with your case)

3) While debate is a core part of the category, I appreciate well-thought-out cases that make sense logically so that I can connect the dots.

4) Please provide weighing mechanisms so that I can see how your case prevails in both presented "worlds"

email: cbhatt@udel.edu

tabula rasa, will vote on anything.

I have done mostly CX debate in high school (graduated 2019), so I am fairly familiar with Ks. I have also done LD, and I have seen both progressive and traditional styles of LD so I am good with both.

You can spread, but make sure to signpost/slow down a little for tags.

Be respectful to each other, but also have fun! Good luck.

When I judge a debate, I look for the team that is the most prepared and the most convincing. Bonus if you are composed, speak clearly, and are quick on your feet.

Hello! Here are my LD & Congress paradigms, the events I most frequently judge. My World Schools preferences are very standard and my LD paradigm can be cross-applied to PF in a lot of ways so I don't have a full written paradigm for those here, but you can feel free to ask me any clarifying questions before the round if I'm your judge in those events!

Email: carteree23@gmail.com (I'd like to be on the email chain)

Debate experience/about me: I'm a first-year history teacher in the School District of Philadelphia, but this is my fifth year as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in New Jersey where I coach our Congress program. When I competed way back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + the tiniest bit of speech at Lafayette College for a while before I switched to coaching.
M.S.Ed - UPenn '21
B.A. English & Government - Lafayette '18

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied and I judge all the time so I'm good with most arguments in round. I'm pretty tab- it's my job as a judge to evaluate everything you put in front of me, and above all I want you to run what you think is your best strategy! A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I can go however fast you want to go with the caveat that online tournaments are generally not conducive to top speed. Slow down a little when reading the evidence tag so I catch the author name.

DAs: I like disads and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I don't like when they have huge, totally unrealistic impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. If you're impacting to nuclear war in a round about plea bargaining, I'm not going to buy the link story. Impact calc is very important but make sure the impacts are realistic/we don't have to make huge jumps on the internal links-- debates are way more interesting when I'm voting on the risk of something that could actually happen. This, of course, does not apply if the resolution specifically lends itself to an extinction scenario, e.g. the nuclear weapons topic or an environmental topic, but you know where the line is!

T/Theory: I don't love a theory and especially a topicality debate because I know it's a timesuck like 97% of the time but if you must, you must. Please save it for instances of genuine abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I grew up on a traditional local circuit myself so I'm a good judge for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!

Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am old and need you to err on the side of overexplaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and again, just explain anything that's more niche. Plan affs? Absolutely yes; I did NFA-LD for a while and that's all we ran. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. I'm here to listen- just tell me where to vote.

And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but keep it collegial before & after rounds, and please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting someone less experienced, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for. You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.

---

Congress

I did Congress during my junior and senior years of high school and it's what I coach now. However, because of my LD-heavy background (and because like many other women in debate I too once knew the pain of putting in the research only to get dropped for "sounding aggressive"), my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package, it is called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me a little different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor!

If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks. I will not hesitate to dock points for any speech under 2:45; use your full 3 minutes of allotted time to provide new content.

I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair and knowledgeable and you'll definitely rank.

Hey, I am a debater for Princeton High School.

Here's my email for an email chain: emilychoi19@gmail.com

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

NLD for Columbia:

- tech > truth

- any argument is fine as long as it is not targeted or morally repugnant

- weigh!!!!!! If both sides have decent arguments, my vote goes to the strongest weighing mechanism!

- my nsda campus connection tends to be glitchy so sending my your speech docs through an email chain would be preferred.

- have fun! and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before round!

- if you sing any one of your speeches: auto 30 speaks

- if you are rude to your opponent: auto -1 speaks

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

Progressive Args:

Avoid running tricks, theory, or Ks in PF.

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

PF Specific:

Don't run blippy arguments that are inherently untrue.

Don't run run the 900 million card.

Don't card dump, legitimately implicate.

Make sure to collapse and extend properly in summary and ff.

Also, WEIGH!!

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

Speaks:

Don't be mean to your opponents.

- If you sing, like actually sing a speech in it's entirety, I'll be not sad: 30 speaks

- If you rap your speech, I'll not be sad: 30 speaks

If you have any questions about my paradigm or in general, don't hesitate to ask me questions before the round.

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to PFD or LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen, voted on, for a reason.

So, with that in mind, life is simple, right? If LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you (please!) slow downed so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

I like consistency in the points made and creative solutions to challenges. Quantification of issues versus qualification of emotions, and specifics versus generalizations are both approaches which work well. Best is when your position paints a consistent and coherent picture and exceptions are removed by logic and data.

If PFD, well your contentions and impact better win out too! Good cards everyone, good cards and roadmap please.

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy ! If I am judging policy, well that is a whole other matter.

I am a parent judge who competed for 4 years in high school in LD, Congress, and Extemp. That was 25 years ago when NSBA was still called the NFL, so my experience is a bit dated.

I am looking for arguments that are well-supported by evidence. I am more likely than most judges to request written citations and will be very open to challenges of evidence that may be misinterpreted, decontextualized, or of questionable relevance. I do not expect winning teams to win every point, especially those that are more tangential to the core question raised in the resolution. I value substantial rebuttals and the introduction of new ideas over simple repetition of arguments already made in previous speeches. If you don't have new information to add to an argument or rebuttal, it is best to make a quick comment that you've already addressed that contention and spend your time making more substantial additions to other contentions.

About myself- I'm currently an ophthalmic technician and mom, but was a wildlife biologist before parenthood. This is my second year judging public forum. I appreciate factual evidence and well supported arguments. Please remain respectful while debating, and speak clearly.

I am new to Judging. I have judged a few PF tournaments in 2018 /19 but my technical knowledge of debate is very limited.

I always look for good communication, professionalism in the debate and body language that shows confidence and conviction. I will write down what I believe is important but don't expect me to write down every single thing on the flow. I also expect the debaters to maintain time.

I will also look for how each debater responds to questions and answers. I prefer professional, decent debate, rather than someone rolling the other person by aggressive interruptions. I believe debate should be vigorous but debaters should show decorum and respect when countering.

Comparative analysis is key, do strong weighing between the two worlds and explain why your world is better than theirs and why I should vote for you. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Again, slow down and be clear.

Since the rounds have limited time, if the debaters get hung up on a point going back and forth for too long, that distracts from the overall debate. I look favorably on the debater that can make their point, and at the appropriate time move on to another strong point of their argument.

I am a parent on a team that practices traditional debate. I'm most interested in seeing students develop their strongest, most important arguments as persuasively as possible rather than rely on tricks or tactics such as rushing through a long list of undeveloped arguments.

Professionally, I work as a law professor and serve as the faculty director for a moot court competition affiliated with the International Criminal Court.

she/her || did 4th years of pf @ oakton || karinliu2011@gmail.com for email chains

lmk if you have questions about my paradigm!

^ email/messenger/ask before the round ◡̈

general

- resolve clash, collapse, extend, compare, & weigh

- alright with speed, send a doc if going fast (but i still might not catch everything)

- second reb should frontline, if not i'll be very hesitant to buy new frontlines in 2nd sum

presumption

- unless given warrants otherwise, i'll presume the team that lost flip

- if it's side locked i'll presume the squo

prog

- i understand theory a bit more than k's, no friv theory or tricks

^ i have v basic understanding of prog so i might vote wrong, make sure it is rly warranted

speaks

- L20 if you run problematic arguments or run prog/spread on newer debaters

other important stuff

- read specific content warnings w/ an anonymous opt in form

- wear whatever you'd like & do whatever that makes you feel comfortable in round

- please lmk if i can make the round more accessible in any way!

https://youtu.be/lCe5M3dWx30

^ aka don't ask anything starting w/ "but wait"

Hi! I'm a college freshman who competed primarily in Congress and LD during my debate career. I encourage both teams to be respectful to their teammates and opponents, a lack of professionalism will be taken into account while ranking. Decorum in and after round along with proper communication is essential (especially with an online format). I'm looking for:

- Strong impacts. Weighing the round and creating a framework for the debate to be framed around is key. Explain why your "world" is more important or the most convincing –– create urgency.

- Well developed cases. A case that is clear and logical will fair well.

- Though I am not a fan of spreading, as long as you are clear and understandable and easy to follow, spreading is acceptable

Hello! I am a former LD debater (eons ago) who judges PF now and again. I am a flow oriented judge. I haven't listened to spreading in a while so I wouldn't go your fastest speeds with me. The most important skill in a round to me is weighing. You should tell me how to judge the round, how the arguments interact with each other, which argument is most important, etc. Tell me the story of how you're winning the round. In terms of theory which I hear is happening in PF now, I haven't seen a round with theory in it since high school (which ended in 2014 for me) and have never seen theory in PF so I am truly not used to it at this point, but I am open to it. You would just need to make sure you are explaining things carefully to me and not assuming I know what's going on. Looking forward to your round! Best of luck!

I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum for 3 years in high school and have judged a handful of tournaments before.

I am comfortable with whatever arguments/speaking pace you would like to use, I only ask that if you are going to read or do something unusual make sure your opponent can understand well enough to argue back.

I usually give out speaker points generously unless you are rude or abusive in which case I will lower speaker points accordingly.

I will be open. I look forward to listening to an in-depth, logical and quantifiable approach in explaining your case. Thank you for the opportunity to learn from you and to witness your development into a future leader of our interconnected world. Have fun!

I am a Sophomore at Trinity College. I debated all through high school in congress ld and pf. My preferences for debate are rounds without spreading and card calling. Speaking quickly is ok, but I don't like auctioneer diction so try to keep it somewhat slow. If a card that your opponent has is egregiously wrong call it, but I am not interested in seeing more than 2 cards called in a round as it distracts from the flow of the debate and wastes time. Convince me you've won by arguing, not by calling cards constantly.

Former NCFL & NSDA PF debater.
I am comfortable with speed, but value quality of points over quantity.
You will lose speaker points for interrupting, talking over, or not allowing your opponent time to answer in CX.

I am a first time volunteer judge and a teacher.

Being the Vice President for Debate for Brooklyn and Queens, my judging policy/critiques are by the NSDA rules.

Off time roadmaps are ok, but it will not be taken into any affect of the end result.

If you or your team member goes over time, I will allow for you to finish up your thought, however, do not exceed longer than 20 seconds.

Truth in your contentions are worth more than technical stunts as carding, road mapping, etc. The core argument needs to be impenetrable. A card, quote, road map will not sway me in the least.

This is my second year as a parent judge. I prefer clear, concise arguments over speed (please no spreading). Use signposting - it will help me remember and understand your argument. Please do not use debate jargon. Show respect for your opponent and stay within your allotted time. Most importantly, please make it clear for me in summary and final focus why you are winning the round. Good luck!

I am a traditional debate judge.  I like clash, weighing of arguments, and substantive, not blippy arguments.  I do not believe that Kritiks and other cases like that have any place in PF debate.  Speed should be reasonable.  I can handle speed, but again, I don't think it belongs in PF.  

I am a trained parent judge. I like to see each team address the points of their opponents thoughtfully and fully. Since I don’t know jargon, I put greater emphasis on logical organization, demeanor, and teamwork.

Here is what I will focus on:

You should clearly address your opponent's arguments and not simply throw out a source that says your opponent is wrong. Make sure you link the evidence to the point you are addressing.

No argument is perfect so if you are clearly losing a point admit it and move on. Don't spend the whole round trying to defend a losing argument. Concentrate on strengthening your other points. I respect competitors who know their strengths and can admit their weaknesses.

The real key to winning is making clear, logical, arguments that are supported by legitimate evidence.

I respect passion and assertiveness but loathe rudeness and condescension.

Hi!

I am a parent judge and I don't have much experience with judging. This will be my first time judging. Please don't speak too fast and speak at a normal, comfortable pace.

Thank you and I look forward to meaningful debates. All the best!

I am a Parent Judge, and I do not have much experience judging. Please do not be confusing. Explain why I should vote for you. Pennsbury is my first Public Forum Debate, so please be nice!

Judging LD

As a disclaimer, I don't have any previous training in LD, but I have judged it a couple of times. During the round, make sure to warrant your arguments and explain the link chain. I cannot vote for an argument I do not understand! Focus on being clear in your argumentation and having an organized structure to your speeches. Remember to weigh and interact with your opponent's responses. Please keep track of speech times and prep time!

Judging PF

*Summary: Please weigh in all speeches after case. Tell me WHY you outweigh and compare the arguments. Also, please respond to the other team’s weighing! I'm a big fan of link-ins during rebuttal. Frontline responses. Extend any good points from cross or arguments you want to collapse on. Tell a story with your argument: make it understandable and cohesive. I vote off the flow. Respect everyone (make debate a safe and inclusive space). Have fun! :)

Hi there! My pronouns are she/her and I have debated as a second speaker in public forum for a few years now.

Add me to the email chain: 23vasishtha2@lexingtonma.org. Please subject the email chain using the following format: Tournament Name, Round #, School Name & Team Code vs. School Name & Team Code. An example of this would look like, “Grapevine Classic, R1, Lexington VL vs. Chilton GG."

Read content warnings if the argument warrants one. If you feel unsafe during the round, please let me know and I will stop the round and contact Tab.

Ask for pronouns before the round starts. If you don't know, use they/them pronouns when referring to your opponents.

Speeches

Speed

I can follow speed, but please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. That being said, speed should not tradeoff with clarity.

Rebuttal

In both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

For second rebuttal, frontline terminal defense and turns.

Note: having link-ins from your case is a very good strategy (but please extend all warrants and impacts from the contention if you extend the link-in and respond to terminal defense).

Summary

Extend all contentions, blocks, frontlines you are collapsing on. Please weigh to show me how these arguments compare against one another. Also, please meta-weigh: this is when you interact with the opponent's weighing and tell me which mechanism is better. If both teams are weighing on different mechanisms, like probability and magnitude for example, you need to tell me why your weighing is better than the opponents.

Final Focus

The final focus speech is a good time to slow down and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. Please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech. Use it to show why you are winning (and do this by weighing!).

Crossfire

I generally enjoy listening to crossfire, especially first and second cross. I like it when first speakers set the groundwork for rebuttal in first cross. Remember, crossfire is all about poking holes in your opponent’s arguments and clarifying any questions you have. Still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.

Theory, Kritiks, Progressive Argumentation

I can evaluate these types of argumentation and am open to judging a theory or progressive debate. Make the debate accessible.

If you feel unsafe during the round, don't hesitate to let me know. I will stop the round and notify tab.

Speaker Points

Clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks. As long as you are respectful during the debate and do not make any insensitive comments, I will usually default to a 28-28.5 for speaks.

Debate the resolution, not something different that you find interesting.

If LD, your Value should win out and your VC should convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense.

If PFD, your contentions and impact should win out. Have good cards. I always appreciate a good roadmap.

Everything is more convincing when you SLOW DOWN so I can actually understand what you're saying. Words are important, but so is your delivery.

Most importantly... have fun!