I am fairly new to debate, having judged twice before. I give equal importance to the style, quality of arguments, clarity, and civility. Arguments should be well-founded and logical. I like it when teams compete passionately and have fun doing so, as long as they maintain civility and respect for all.

- Be confident in round

- Be respectful of your opponents

- Please speak slow and clear

Hi! Please be kind, respectful, civil, and mature. You all know the rules, please be sure to follow them (I would prefer to not have to remind anyone of them). Please speak slowly and clearly enough that I can follow along and take thoughtful notes, I am a flay judge. Good luck to everyone!

Hi, I'm Evan, I go to University College London and I study Politics, Sociology, and East European Studies, I did debate for 3 and a half years in highschool qualed for TOC my senior year.

PF-

Boring technical stuff-

>include me in all evidence exchanges please:)

>Tabula rasa (everyone says this but built different I guess), I will never be the type of judge to rattle off a rebuttal during my decision, if it wasn't said in round, it won't affect my judgement, no matter my opinions on topic/argument/political stance

>Flow/flex judge, can handle some speed, that being said speaker points may lower if you're not clear.

>better/more clear arguments always better than speed though

>I much prefer one really well thought out, explained, and carded response to 10 blippy ones with no warranting, don't just flood the flow because you can

>Progressive debate is fine but don't be abusive, don't read theory unless theres actual abuse, will buy disclosure if done well and opponents are running a squirly case, will definitely buy paraphrase, will 100% buy any theory about things that ruin the space of debate for some(TW, excessive gendered language, etc.)

>that being said, progressive debate will make your job as a debater significantly harder, if you think you can win progressive arguments you might as well run normal ones if you just want to win the round

>Must extend through every speech, if not extended through summary will consider it dropped especially on impacts

>Please don't bring up an impact, statistic, or voter in final focus if it wasn't in summary

>Impact calculus is very important but 75% of the time won't be the reason I vote a team up, especially if its done without case extension/defense

>that being said if i'm evaluating 2 arguments extremely closely and one had impact calc and the other didn't I will always vote for the former

>Tech>Truth most of the time, don't run obviously wrong args tho

>Please run unique or interesting cases, stock with spikes or weird warrants are fire too

>aggressive during cross is fine, however don't be a jerk, don't speak over your opponent, don't be rude

>don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, instant 0 speaks and most likely vote down, debate is supposed to be a safe space

>will call for evidence even if not brought up during round only if it seems extremely sus, if you want me to look at evidence I will post round, say it in speech and i'll evaluate it as need be, it's the debaters job to recognize sus evidence, not mine

>please both quantify impacts as well as actualize them, "GDP skyrockets" (tell me how much) "GDP rises by 200%" (better/fine, but what does this mean for people, or government, or one specific area) "GDP rises by 200% meaning every mom in America can by 2 more jugs of chocolate milk" (perfect)

-fun "quirky" stuff-

>I don't care what you do in round as long as it isn't blatantly disrespectful to your opponent, illegal, or something that could get me in trouble

>cursing is fine but no need to over do it

>TKO, if you think your opponent has literally no paths to the ballot you can call technical knockout, 30W if right, 25L if wrong

Congress:

>please don't be boring

>clash is an instant way to get my attention

>if you bring up the same points as everyone else don't expect to be well ranked

>if you use a prewritten speech late session that doesn't respond to anyone else don't expect to be well ranked

>if you read off of a laptop or ipad don't expect to be well ranked
>don't be obnoxious with parli pro

>funny intros are enjoyable

>speeches should be atleast 2:30

>use logic or evidence in your speech, make actual arguments please

If you have any questions email me:) i sound mean but i'm not, I just would rather express what I explicitly want in a round so there's no guesswork

evanbeck2021@gmail.com

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

he/they

please include me on any email chains: trq.ebdavidson@gmail.com

Graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas and currently enrolled at Texas Tech University Master's program

Competed in and judged most debate events including LD and Policy but I have the most experience in Congress and Public Forum

Speed is not a problem for me however make sure you are still speaking clearly. I will not flow anything that is not verbally understood

All arguments must have a foundation of a claim, warrant, and impact otherwise you are free to structure your argument in anyway you feel is most appropriate

Debate is supposed to be fun and informative so everyone should aim to have a great time and be respectful. Morally/ethically inappropriate arguments will earn you the lowest speaker points possible.

For virtual tournaments please mute yourself when it is not your turn to speak

Hello!

The short version on how to win my ballot:

-Be clear. If you can't spread then please don't try.

-Warrant. Repeating author names does not make your argument more important in the round, warranting why it is more important/valid does.

-Weigh. Please. Just. Weigh.

If you have any questions, my email is freundmikas@gmail.com

How I evaluate rounds in more detail:

Constructive: I really do not care what you read. I am less familiar with progressive args and therefore less likely to vote for them. If you paraphrase, please do so with integrity. If I think a piece of evidence is power tagged or flat out misconstrued I will call for it. Send me a speech doc if you want before or after your speech.

Rebuttal: The second rebuttal has to respond to the first rebuttal. Please warrant your response, if you simply dump I will not grant you any contextualization you decide to suddenly add in second summary or final focus. Be strategic, frameworks and weighing overviews are usually a good idea especially in second rebuttal. No Offs in second rebuttal. Overall just be clear and strategic.

Summary: Defense is not sticky in first summary. Weighing should at the very least be present here to be an active part of my decision, however, it really should be briefly mentioned in rebuttal. Please collapse, it will make the round cleaner and more interesting for everyone involved. No new arguments in second summary unless you are FL something new from first summary.

Final focus: Anything that was not in the summary should not be in the FF. This is the time to really emphasize your weighing and win my ballot based on that. Extending a ton of responses and going for coverage while sacrificing contextualization will be a mistake.

Cross: I don't care what you do. However, please don't take advantage of the situation if your opponent clearly has very little experience or is a novice. We should encourage younger debaters to stay in the activity! Either way cross won't affect my decision.

*Obviously I will not tolerate any arguments or comments that are condescending, hurtful or straight-up racist/sexist/discriminatory in any way. Comments as such will award you with the lowest speaks I can give as a judge.*

Also, please don't postround me. As a debater myself I know the frustration that comes with disagreeing with the judge's decision. However, I am doing my best to make the "right" decision and hope that you can accept it, even if not wholeheartedly. Overall if you have a question that will help you learn from the round don't hesitate to email me I will be happy to help!

I have been judging PF for several years. I look for logical reasoning, creative thinking and attention to detail when evaluating the participants.

I prefer the participants use reasonable references with regard to objective claims.

Cross can be a good time to show your strengths for both sides and I find that to be a deciding factor in many rounds.

Prep and teamwork become apparent as the round proceeds and I judge based on that as well.

Decorum, civility and respect count towards an essential requirement through out the round.

I am a parent judge with some experience.

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Please respect other speakers during crossfire and do not interrupt opponents.

Your case is the most important part of the round.

Please weigh in the round and compare your arguments.

Good Luck!

Hi! I'm a sophomore at Stanford and competed on the PF national circuit as College Prep HO for 3 years. Add me to the email chain please:

hhekmat@stanford.edu

tldr - I'm a pretty standard tech judge, w/ tech > truth, and simply put the more work you do for me, the less likely I am to make a decision that you disagree with!

Heads up, I know damn near nothing about the topic lol so please spell out acronyms the first time around and all that to make sure there aren't any leaps you're taking that I miss.

For non substance arguments (e.g. theory, Ks, etc) while I've seen a fair amount of rounds and find them super interesting, I don't have a lot of direct experience myself. Basically just a quick disclaimer to proceed with caution and make your advocacy very clear for me if that's the direction the debate is headed, and it should hopefully make for an interesting round!

Tech > Truth

Make sure you weigh your arguments vs your opponents'! It'll make things a lot easier for me and make it so I don't have to intervene with my own biases/opinions.

An argument has to be fully extended in both summary and final focus for me to vote on it. That means every step of the link chain along with the impact should be in the back half of the round! If you're speaking 2nd, you also have to frontline it in 2nd rebuttal (respond to their responses from 1st rebuttal).

To re-emphasize, extending warrants is critical. Don't just throw out card names and dates. In fact, I'd rather you have warrants than just naming the piece of evidence from earlier in the round. Final focuses should have both though.

(like I said above...) Frontline in 2nd rebuttal!!

I'll vote off the flow based on what's said in speeches (not in cross). If you get a concession in cross, point it out in speech.

Defense is sticky, you can still make my job easier by extending it anyways. If you do want to read it in rebuttal and bring up that it was dropped later, please point out that defense is sticky as you implicate it however you will.

I won't call for cards unless you specifically ask me to within speeches.

Once again (because this is particularly important), PLEASE WEIGH!! Not just the numbers and impacts, but also the warrants, links, etc. Tell me why your argument is more likely, more clear, affects more people, and/or needs to be prioritized for any other reason.

Time yourselves please.

I'm ok with mild speed but definitely rusty so I might miss some things on the flow (especially online considering technical difficulties)... aka proceed at your own risk.

Be respectful, don't say anything hateful or offensive, and fill your time; you'll at least get a 28 from me if you do those things.

Best of luck, and have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions before and after the round, and even reach out to my email way after if you want :)

I can't judge what I can't follow-speak at a reasonable pace so I can catch everything you are saying.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

Please speak slow and clear.

Not a big fan of lying so that would not be appreciated.

If you do clash make it clear.

And lastly, before reading cases and etc. please state which case you will be reading.

:)

-Please be respectful in rounds

-Please do not speak quickly; It will be more difficult for me to follow your argument.

I am a parent judge. I do not like excessive speed. Please do not spread.

I prefer clarity over speed and quality over quantity.

I debated 4 years of PF at Newton South High School and im in college now.

Make sure to have your cut cards readily available. Don't paraphrase evidence please because you can make anything sound like anything.

I judge by the flow. I usually prefer arguments with stronger links but weaker impacts than arguments with weaker links but stronger impacts.

I can handle spreading but its pretty annoying. If you have to do it, Id like you to send a speech doc to: maxmarrinan227@gmail.com

Im going to disclose the decision at the end of the round

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

I am a parent volunteer. I've judged PF and LD before but am still learning as a judge.

Arguments - In terms of what I like to see in round, my policy is quality over quantity. I would rather see a couple well explained and supported arguments and lines of reasoning rather than a long list of things that you only skim over and don't fully explain. Your arguments should be backed with solid evidence, but you should also be able to explain why the evidence is relevant and why your evidence wins over your opponents. Impact weighing is key, and is one of the main ways I decide a round (you can't win without impact weighing!).

Evidence - It is the debaters' responsibility to call for any cards and explain to me any issues with their opponents cards, so I generally won't look at cards that are in question in the round. However, if there is an especially controversial card, I will occasionally ask to see it, or if a debater wants me to look at a card, I will do that. Cards can be sent to me at kayenilson@gmail.com.

Speed and organization - I'm not comfortable with super fast speed so please speak at an understandable pace and signpost. I should be able to tell what argument/part of the flow you are addressing. If I don't understand what you're saying for any reason or if you're significantly over the time limit, I will put my pen down and stop taking notes. Assume I may not know super technical terms and regardless, think they should be avoided because it's best practice to make your arguments understandable and accessible to a lay audience. You should also avoid debate lingo for the same reason.

Presentation - On presentation, please project and enunciate during speeches. During crossfire, be sure to be respectful and non-condescending. While I don't judge based off of crossfire, if you're overly aggressive and interrupting your opponent, you may lose speaker points.

Thank you and good luck!

I have done PF judge for several years as a parent judge. I don't have certain merits what would guarantee a win. Please prepare well, be yourself, try your best, and never give up.

It will be very helpful for me if you could provide signpost, compare evidence, weigh impact and scope. Summary and final focus is very important for decision making.

Enjoy the journey and have fun!

henrynomeland@gmail.com

I look at the chain to check evidence. I won't be flowing off of a doc.

Debated circuit PF for Lakeville. I study Statistics at UW-Madison. Briefly did instructing/coaching after High School.

UPDATED FOR TOC 2024

I haven't thought a lot about debate since around 2021 so keep that in mind.

PLEASE be chill and nice to everyone in crossfire and during speeches.

I flow extensions and care about them being good.

Have cards. Avoid going for multiple case arguments in summary. Have your evidence ready to be sent I'm fed up with ridiculously long evidence exchanges.

My favorite arguments are relatively niche, relatively small impact scenarios concerning interest groups that get less attention in most debates.

I evaluate arguments and not the labels of arguments. Pointing out that your opponent's responses don't use the jargon and preconceived frameworks that you're anticipating them to use isn't going to win my ballot.

Voting where debaters tell me to vote >>> Voting where I personally think you messed up

I prefer debaters who call out their opponent’s mistakes.

If everyone is making mistakes, I generally try to give each side some risk of offense and attempt to vote off of clash/defense/weighing. If there's no clash and no weighing I will be sad.

Prog Stuff

I would seriously prefer to judge a substance round. I don't understand postmodernism, philosophy, and the state of debate discourse over the past three years nearly well enough to judge these issues as accurately as many other judges. This being said,I will vote for reasonable arguments that you win and weigh. I debated theory a lot more than Ks when I was in debate. Frivolous theory, truth testing, and tricks are bad and my threshold for responses is low. In particularly egregious cases I will simply not vote for arguments along these lines, even if they survive to final focus.

Other Stuff

These people taught me debate:

Maddie Cook

Bryce Piotrowski

Gus Gerlach

I reserve the right to drop you for making the space unsafe.

I also reserve the right to drop you for blatantly violating NSDA or tournament rules (there are probably rules that are bad, I promise I won't arbitrarily enforce bad rules or trivial technicalities). Fabricating or egregiously misrepresenting evidence is basically always an instant loss.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for four years.

Do not say untrue or imprecise things about the economy. I know how it works.

I’ll do my best to flow, but can’t guarantee that I’ll get everything if you are speaking too quickly

I understand minimal debate jargon. Don’t use it.

Make my life easy - provide clear extensions of your arguments and tell me why they matter.

Don’t lie. I won’t like you if you lie.

Don’t steal prep time - it is massively annoying.

If you are late, your speaker points will probably be lower.

I do not like it when debaters are rude. I get that you have to clash, but there is a line to walk, and it truly is not a fine line. It is not hard to not be rude. Do not mansplain or be condescending. Do not laugh at your opponents. I am less likely to pick you up if you do.

Don’t make bigoted arguments. I may not be as “woke” as my younger judges but it will not fly with me.

Ideally, please use the chat or file share for sharing evidence! I need to see it and it's weird for me to be on email groups with teenagers. These in-app tools are provided for your use.

please be on time

yes I would like to be on the email chain max.o_reilly@tufts.edu

This is a slightly altered version of Tom Perret's paradigm

1. Please signpost. None of the paradigm matters if I can't flow.

2. I'm super annoying about link extensions. You can't just frontline and move on. As long as you take the time to fully explain your argument (and the evidence that proves it) in summary, final focus, and - to a certain extent - second rebuttal, you'll be fine.

3. Weigh comparatively. Weigh your turns too. Why is your impact larger, more urgent, than your opponents'? I don't think the innate probability of an impact is a reason why you outweigh; if you've won a link to the impact, it is probable. Probability impact weighing is just a lazy way to add random defense in summary and final focus.

4. Final focus and summary should mirror each other. This applies mostly to link arguments and impact extensions. New weighing in 1st Final Focus is fine, I guess.

5. Frontline in second rebuttal or it's dropped.

6. Generally, everything is better if you read cut cards.

7. If you paraphrase, have cut cards, NOT URLs or random hundred-page PDFs. Otherwise, I will strike it and feel more inclined to drop you.

8. I default to presuming neg because if neither team has offense then I guess I'll stick with the status quo.

9. Disclose on the Wiki for a boost in speaker points - here is a tutorial.

10. I won't be paying attention to cross ex. If anything important happens during it bring it up in speech. If it turns into a yelling match I'll get sad and lower the speaker points of the rude team (or both teams if it's two-sided tbh please chill).

11. Run whatever progressive args you want. this being said:

a. I have a pretty decent handle on theory.

b. I ran some progressive args, frameworks, etc. in my day so feel free to do these but make sure you explain them very well and make them comparative and then I can properly weigh them

c. Please acknowledge that your team may have many more resources than other teams and which may lead other teams to not understand the progressive arguments you are running on them. if you are running theory, Ks, etc. on novices or small schools that do not understand them, I will feel very comfortable dropping you the second you read the off.

if you have questions

email me max.o_reilly@tufts.edu or Max O'Reilly on Facebook

I used to debate so more could be expected from me than a parent judge. Speed is ok; however, make sure to prioritize clarity in the second half to make the voting less difficult.

Cohesion is important and can win the round, especially when people move onto meta-weighing instead of circling around established arguments. I do like non-traditional cases with critical theory, social justice, and framework, but such argumentation and framing must be established within the first speech and still evaluate the apposing framework. Teams that use such cases shouldn't just use these cases to earn ballots and be extra sensitive and knowledgeable. Ultimately, I prefer arguments grounded in the real world and palatable scenarios. I expect link chain arguments and extinction scenario cases to be fleshed out and allow for actual argumentation to occur.

Evidence is important and I will check it if need be, but evidence comparison should not be used to avoid argumentation. Do not abuse evidence.

i flow the round but i'm not tech and i can handle some speed (be safe and just go slow). i'm pretty well-read on most topics, especially economic ones, but i'm tech over truth. logic > evidence w/o warranting. if the tournament allows me to i'll disclose w/ a detailed rfd

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Hi guys!

My name is Zoey and I debated PF on the national circuit for all four years of high school at Rowland Hall in Salt Lake City Utah. I qualified for nationals two years in a row and have made it pretty far in some high skill national tournaments, such as Alta, Jack Howe, ASU, etc. I love debate and know a lot about debate so no need to be worried about me being a lay judge in any way.

As for what I would like to see in rounds. First and foremost please please please be respectful. If I see or hear any homophobia, xenophobia, racism, or ignorance of any kind, wether in arguments or in cross, I will nuke your speaks if not drop your entire team. Abusiveness in arguments or presence is not welcome in the debate space. Additionally if I see debaters, specifically female or nonbinary ones, being spoken down to, interrupted, or made uncomfortable I will, again, either injure your speaks or drop you depending on the severity.

Okay, secondly, I am totally okay with progressive debate, speed, theory, K's, tricks, etc. If you are planning on speed, I would prefer you just speak at a pace where I can flow on my computer or, if needed, send me a doc. I am pretty good with theory and K's and tricks, but please if the other team is not do not use it as a cheap way to win, I will view that as bad debate.

As for speeches in general, I am tech over truth, but don't push that, lie, and be abusive. Framework is cool but not necessary. PLEASE FRONTLINE! Frontlining starts as early as second rebuttal, and I expect extensions to be from resolution to impact, do not just extend through ink. Additionally please collapse, taking on too many arguments at once makes for bad debate. I expect summaries to be the best speeches in the round because you have the most to do in just three minutes so make use of your time and learn what matters in a speech. Final focus is pretty simple, weigh weigh weigh, impact impact impact. I believe that weighing should be brought up in rebuttals, but I also understand not having enough time. That being said if one team weighs in rebuttal and extends through FF, and one team waits until FF to start, there will be a large advantage for the other team. Honestly just debate well, weigh, extend resolution to impact, collapse, and be respectful :)

Cross will in no way impact who wins or your speaks but if there is abuse that can change. Please make cross fun, yes use it as a way to answer questions you need answered, but also the best part about cross is making your opponents get flustered and feel behind. Use it to your advantage, it can help in speeches. If you bring up something said in cross during a speech I will flow it but in general I will not be flowing cross.

As for evidence, I have high evidence standards, I am cool with paraphrasing don't worry, I think it is needed in PF, but please have everything carded and ready to show your opponents. I will only call for cards if it is contended or seems sus.

If I am forgetting something feel free to ask me before the round starts! Also please be on time to rounds :) have fun, debate well, be kind, and good luck

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

Current Student at the University of Georgia

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

Standard Flow Judge, Ex-PF Debater, a little bit rusty

I am a parent lay judge. This is the second tournament I have ever judged and I am quite unfamiliar with the topic so please do not assume that I know what you are talking about--explain things fully. Speak at a conversational speed.

Most importantly, be kind and respectful to everyone in the round--otherwise you will receive lower speaker points or drop the round entirely.

Here are a few things I look for in a debate round. I look for line-by-line debate so I know what arguments you are making and what arguments you are making to refute your opponents. It also helps me know if any points were dropped during the round. I would also like to see your weighing and your impacts, essentially why your argument has more impact than your opponents. This would also include having a clear framework and proving why your framework outweighs your opponent's framework. I would prefer less spreading so that I can clearly catch all the points you are trying to make. Finally don't be rude to your judge or your opponents in the round.

I debated in HS and can handle progressive debate and speed, though if doing PF don't want to see a Policy round. If using a framework make sure to actually use the framework to shape the round, and if there are competing frameworks tell me which to use and why. Be sure to weigh in your round so I know what arguments to prioritize. Finally, I'll be flowing the round so don't drop arguments in one speech and expect them to flow through to later speeches.

What I like:

- Cool frameworks and different kinds of weighing mechanisms

- Well-timed wit

- Explaining what your evidence means in the context of the round

- Signposting

- Being unique

- Being kind

What I don't like:

- Unclear link chains/not talking about your link chain and just saying stuff will happen

- Unproductive cross x. If neither of you have questions that's okay, just call it early.

- Yelling/being mean

Speed:

- Slow down a little for tags

- If I can't understand you, I'll put my pen down - or if it's online I'll use the raise hand feature.

How I vote:

- The only work that I should be doing is flowing and keeping track of what is dropped and what isn't.

- Tell me why your arguments are more important.

Feel free to talk to me after the round.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 6 years - primarily IE, PF, LD, and Congress. I am a marketing professional with a large software company, but also have experience in public policy research (I have a master in public administration). I love data -- so feel free to provide a lot of evidence to back up your contentions. Just be sure that it is relevant and logical. I take "tech" over "true" and expect opponents to question data/evidence and point out falsehoods.

Please do not spread -- you will lose the debate because I will not be able to follow you. Speak up, use eye contact. When doing debate virtually, please don't stand too far away from your laptop and check in once in awhile to be sure that the connection is still sound.

Please provide me with sign-posts -- where you are on the flow and when you move to the opposition's case. Be sure to let me know your voters and what to weigh. Let me know the impacts of your contentions/arguments and why they matter.

For speaker points, focus on showing me your strategy, thought process, impacts, sign-posts. Extend your arguments and explain well. Don't just repeat yourself, but further your argument and explain why your side will have the best outcome (impact).

Some other points:

- Don't use gratuitous profanity. There are so many words in the English language that you don't need to swear.
- No K-debates. Please debate the given topic. You won't win if you veer away from the topic
- Be kind. Be passionate about your argument, but don't get mean or condescending
- Be sure of your facts. If you bring something about current events into the argument, be sure that you are clear about the facts. I read the paper too, although I will not bring my own knowledge of the events into my judging until your opponents bring up the falsehood. It just reflects badly.
- Don't be too catastrophic in your impact, unless you really can show that, in all probability, the end of the world is at hand