My Email: isaacappelbaum404@gmail.com

Origin Story:

Hi! I'm Isaac. I am a rising junior at George Washington University in D.C. and I competed in 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 I was lucky enough to place/final at tournaments like Harvard, Princeton, Sunvite, Blue Key, Barkley Forum (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 2 well developed arguments over 3 poorly constructed ones

Stick to legislation what does the legislation do

LD:

Don't spread

cite good sources

present links clearly

PF:

Don’t spread (speak so quickly I can’t understand you)

use good sources (try not to use news articles, stick to research)

arguments flow in linear fashion (I should be able to see where you go from point A to point B to point C)

give me a human reason to vote for your side (this means establish the human impact why the issue directly impacts a human person)

no theory please (stick to arguing the facts, data, and information of the issues at hand in the motion)

Please sign post arguments (tell me that you are about to make a big point before you do)! I need this for flowing purposes

I'm a flow judge and have debated 4 years of PF at Trinity School. Broke to dubs at 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 18" 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 sophomore who has competed in PF, CON, and Policy 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 if spreading please ensure that each word is properly articulated (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) Please provide weighing mechanisms so that I can see how your case prevails in both presented "worlds"

4) Please prioritize warranting and impacting your claims and I love a good debate based on warrants and/or impacts.

5) Fairness arguments in Policy are not a complete argument in my opinion and while I will take glaring fairness issues into account (ex: not providing a card or stating the card will be expanded later in the round to decrease the amount of debate time regarding the topic) if I feel a that a "potential abuse" does not truly hinder the team or the debate I will not be swayed by it.

email: cbhatt@udel.edu

I have done mostly CX debate in high school (graduated 2019), so I am fairly familiar with Ks. I have also done LD (and a little PF) 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.

PCFL quals William Tennent - this is my first time judging in this school year so unfortunately I have not really seen the favored args and meta for this year in terms of policy debate. But I am well experienced in this format so it should be fine.

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.

Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.

Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.

T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and am always good 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 getting very old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining 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 just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. 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 please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting a novice, 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.

---

PF

A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.

Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coached. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's 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 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.

I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. 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; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.

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

Hey, I debated PF for four years at Princeton High School. 

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

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

VBI Specific:

Lol idk much about trains so extra warranting >>> 

Don't assume I know things; explain everything clearly, or else I'll have just as much reason to believe the opposite is true.

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

Progressive Args:

Avoid running tricks, theory, or Ks in PF --> not a big fan, especially if it is run poorly. 

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

PF Specific:

Don't run blippy arguments that are inherently untrue. 

Don't run run the 900 million card --> although it will make me laugh.

Don't card dump, legitimately implicate.

Make sure to collapse and extend properly in summary and ff --> parallel structure!!

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 :D

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

- Please do not be rude to your opponents or else: 10 speaks

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

For PFD and LD.

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, and voted on, for a reason.

It is helpful to "bullet-point" and number your arguments.

Do not bring in new topics/arguments when summarizing. This is unfair to the opposing team who will have had no opportunity to rebut. Doing this will lose points.

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. If you speak too quickly and I cannot catch what you say, it is as though you didn't say it. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it! Nevertheless, if I do not catch what you say this will likely result in lost points. This also applies to PFD.

Similarly, acronyms are great short hand but do not assume I will be familiar with them. Define them at the outset before using them freely.

I like consistency in the points made and creative solutions to challenges. Twists in an argument and subtle nuances can be fun as well as win the day! 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 and rebuttals are removed by logic and data. Logical arguments supporting your position are far more important than rewording the same statement, except when there is a need to clarify ambiguities or terms.

If PFD, well your contentions and impact better win out too! Good cards everyone, good cards and roadmap please. If you have evidence for me to see, then make sure I see it. You are responsible for confirming it was received and can be read by me.

Finally, if you want me to tell you when it is time, or 5 seconds or other time before your time is up tell me in advance and be explicit. This includes prep time. It is your responsibility to communicate this and to be sure I received and accepted the message. This is not the time to be subtle. You will only lose points if I have to tell you that you went overtime.

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.

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

I'm currently the Riparian Program Manager for an accredited land trust and environmental non-profit, Clearwater Conservancy. I previously worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a regulatory biologist and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered Species Biologist. I'm also a Certified Ophthalmic Technician and worked alongside an ophthalmologist for several years. This is my fourth year judging public forum. I appreciate factual evidence and well supported arguments that logically back up your impact statement. Please remain respectful while debating, and speak clearly. Email for evidence sharing: jkdombroskie@gmail.com

I have judged a few PF tournaments in the past years but my technical knowledge of debate is 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.

4 years of pf @ oakton || karinliu2011@gmail.com for email chains

lmk if you have questions about my paradigm! ◡̈

general

- resolve clash/compare warrants (!!!!!), collapse, extend, & 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 lot 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

^ 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 am a lay parent judge. 

• You win based on the quality and strength of your arguments, not the speed or aggressiveness they are presented.  If you speak too fast and I can't understand or flow it, it won't help you, so do not spread.  Quality > quantity.
• Be respectful. 
• Tell me what you are doing.  For example, if you drop a contention for strategic purposes, tell me  so I don't think you dropped it due to negligence. 
• Avoid highly improbable impacts.  If it isn't going to happen, it doesn't matter how terrible it is.
• Good luck and have fun!

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've been judging PF debate for two yea and have taught in both middle school high school. I deeply appreciate clarity of argument and for debaters to speak slowly enough that I can understand what is being said. I flow on the entire debate including cross

This is also my first year as a LD judge. Likewise, clarity is essential. Please don't speak too quickly!

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.

I am a parent judge. I prefer clear, concise arguments over speed (please no spreading). Use signposting - it will help me remember and understand your argument. Do not use debate jargon and keep your own time. Be civil and show respect for your opponents. 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. 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. 

I'm a freshman in college, and I debated in public forum in high school. I judge a lot, so I'm happy to give advice and answer questions at the end of the round.

Add me to the email chain: rv2529@barnard.edu.

• I'm open to theory and progressive arguments when ran well.
• I can follow speed, but please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. That being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

• 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.
• PS: I like link-ins from case and preq. arguments a lot. I don't like when teams use their case arguments as their only responses ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate (interact with the individual warrants and links!)
• In summary, extend all contentions, blocks, frontlines you are collapsing on. Please weigh to show me how these arguments compare against one another.
• I like meta-weighing -- tell me which mechanism is better.
• Not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.
• 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.
• I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. 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.
• Clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

• I like framework when it is well warranted and unique... I don't like "cost-benefit analysis" framework

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!