As a judge I like impacts not necessarily statistics. Be polite to one another, and convince me!

Iowa City West High School '23 | she/her | alicedebate3014@gmail.com

About me: I’m currently a varsity PFer; this is my 4th year of debate.

NOVICES: take everything below with a grain of salt, debate the best you can, and have fun!

General:

• "debate is a game" so tech>truth
• I will always disclose unless told not to
• Run what you want as long as it's warranted & has impacts
• Time yourselves
• Be nice
• If you bring me bubble tea before the round, +0.5 speaks
• Feel free to email or Instagram DM me if you have more questions after the round :)

Things I want to see:

• Off-time roadmaps & signposting
• Trigger warning if your arguments could be sensitive
• Start frontlining in 2nd rebuttal
• Weighing, especially in summary and final focus
• Interaction (aka actually RESPOND to what your opponents say, don't flow through ink)
• Collapse, don't extend stuff you know you can't win
• Collapse STRATEGICALLY - aka don't go for the contention/argument that has 8 responses to it (unless you're prepared to/have time to frontline them all), when you could go for the one that has just 2

Things I DON'T want to see:

• "Bruh homies out here having an asthma attack while reading cases." Don't spread. This is pf. If I miss something you say, that's on you. (If your opponents spread, feel free to run anti-spreading theory)
• Don't read frivolous theory
• DONT READ PROGRESSIVE ARGS IF YOU KNOW YOUR OPPONENTS DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABT PROGRESSIVE PF

• "asking" statements, instead of questions, during cross
• New arguments in final focus or 2nd summary. This is abusive; your opponents don't have enough time to respond.
• Bringing stuff up in final focus that wasn't brought up in summary (I won't vote on it)
• DON'T just read card after card. You need to analyze in between and explain how they prove your point
• Discrimination

I think speaks are very subjective, but here you go:

30: God-tier - I see you definitely breaking and making it into deep out rounds

29.5-29: Great - You're breaking for sure, might not make it far, but you're breaking

28.5-28: Average - Might be on the verge of breaking/will be in a bubble round

27.5-27: Comprehendible

<26: Either I can't understand you at all, or you were egregiously rude/discriminatory

link to one of my favorite pf rounds ever!

Hello, my name is Calvin. I'm a senior at Roosevelt and have been debating in Public Forum since middle school. Add me on the email chain: calvinj.goldsberry@gmail.com AND trhspf@googlegroups.com

When I am judging, you will have my full attention. I will not be on social media or other websites.

Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.

TLDR: I am a tech judge.

Judging Philosophy

I am tabula rasa/tech>truth. I will evaluate anything I can understand.

I don't care about speed as long as you can produce a speech doc that I can follow.

Defense is not sticky.

Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.

Good weighing will probably win you the debate.

Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence will result in a TKO and Tabroom contact.

Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.

Kritiks

I love K debates. I think these debates are extremely important for the debate space when they are run well. I'm familiar with a lot of K lit (Afropess, Cap, Imperialism, Setcol, Fem IR), but please explain things in simple terms so I can understand the warrant-level debate.

Theory

Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.

I struggle to evaluate RVIs, they do not make much sense to me. Why should you win for being fair?

Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.

Tricks

These are uneducational and impossible to evaluate, please don't read them.

Speaker Points

I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks.

25 or less: You intentionally did something abusive/offensive. I have probably contacted Tab.

25-26: You did something pretty wrong/You are a novice.

26-27: You made some mistakes.

27-28: Average.

28-29: Pretty good!

29-30: One of the best teams at this tournament.

If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.

add me to the email chain: benjaminkleiman5@gmail.com

TLDR: read anything (unless its discriminatory and/or mean)

defaults: tech > truth, text > spirit, No RVIs, CIs > reasonability, Yes OCIs, DTA for evidence/argument violations, DTD for out of round violations, Metatheory > Theory = T > K > Substance, defense is not sticky, I presume for the team I like more

none of these defaults are set in stone, if u give me a reason as to why spirit > text or why your ur K up-layers theory then thats cool

If I think your behaviour/discourse is bad for the space I will probably drop you and give you exceptionally low speaks

don't read an identity K if ur not of that identity

postround me, idc. i like it when the coaches join in on the fun too.

for policy/LD:

i've never competed or judged policy/LD but if you warrant things well just do whatever.

i dont know about the speech/prep times so just be diligent and keep your opponents in check.

I did public forum debate for four years in high school, and am currently debating APDA in college. I do not mind fast talking, but spread at your own risk, as you do yourself no favors if I cannot understand you. Please always be kind and courteous to others, I will heavily penalize speaker points for ad hominem attacks(attack your opponents instead of their arguments), as debate should be a safe space for everyone. Please include trigger warnings if your case contains explicit or possibly disturbing content. I prefer quality of arguments to quantity of arguments, one strong contention can override three weak ones, unless framing changes how I should weigh. Speaking slowly and confidently will make it easier for me to organize your arguments, and make sure to narrow the debate down to a few big points in summary and final focus. Lastly, just have fun. Debate can get very competitive, so take a few breaths before the round to calm your nerves and mind, and try to enjoy it, because most of us spend far too much time debating to regret it.

During a PF debate, I will decide the outcome primarily based on strength of argument, mastery of delivery and overall soundness relative to the other team. Also, I’m not afraid of being a bit brusque to defend or argue a point. Just don’t be rude. Also, I am not a particular fan of spreading or card dumping.

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach a bit. I studied political science and international relations and now work in state politics. I'm a very average flow judge.

add me to the email chain and label the round morgandylan183@gmail.com

Flip, pre-flow, and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get to there.

PLEASE do not go more than 5 seconds over time or prep steal, call your opponents out if they do this

Don't shake my hand

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where to vote. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this.

Speed: I do not want to have to follow along in a doc, be understandable. I flow on paper, I can keep up pretty well. If you are going really fast, look to see if I am writing, and adjust if I'm not

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow. Non-highlighted cards are a BIG no.

You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy args on my flow and I shouldn't have to.

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides more comparative weighing

I love tons of warranting, smart analytics, good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff, and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

Progressive Arguments

I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates and I don't care. BUT If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory. I'm not that familiar with K's or any other progressive args. I do know I strongly prefer topical K's.

With progressive debates, I am a lay judge. Slow down and explain everything more. I require sending speech docs for these.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine. I will doc speaks if you do not do things I specifically ask, i.e. slowing down during progressive args.

I love being asked questions and helping you learn!!

This is probably going to seem like a lot of rambling but I think you'll find something of value in here:

I don't have a lot of preferences when it comes to speaking speed, evidence debates, etc. but you need to flow your arguments through the round! If your opponent brings something up in rebuttal that would de-link your contention, I'm not going to weigh your contention until you counter their argument. With that said though, speaking speed should be consistent and you shouldn't be spreading to the point where your breathing is louder than your talking. Also, you have to tell me the source for any evidence that you site otherwise i'm basically just taking your word for it (which is fine, until your opponents call you out for it). When it comes to framework, I'm basically always going to side with cost benefit analysis unless you give me a compelling reason to have a more restrictive framework.

I have experience as a debater and therefore feel free to use whatever debate syntax you want, but don't use it incorrectly. Completely unrelated, but I do value logical arguments to a certain extent. If your opponents give a logical argument (that makes sense) I expect you to clash over it, instead of just saying that "it doesn't have a source so you don't weigh their argument".

As far as the purpose of speeches: Constructive and rebuttal are obvious, but summary can get contentious. I expect you to give me voters and weigh impacts in summary, and while I don't think it's particularly nice to do, you can bring up new arguments in both summaries. Grand Crossfire/Final Focus is the point of no return for new arguments, at this point if you bring up a new argument I won't consider it. Grand Cross is to make the debate clearer, and Final focus is to give me the whole context of why you have won the round.

I judge based on flowing, weighing, and impacts. As long as you can do those within a round you're good. Read as fast as you want, but please use good manners. If bad manners are used within a round, the win will go to the opposing team.

I don't particularly care about handshakes, standing vs sitting, or eye contact rules so those will not be considered when distributing speaker points.

please start an email chain: syadavdebate@gmail.com

----------

I would call myself a fairly flow judge. "tech > truth" unless the evidence that is being read is very misrepresented.

Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in summary. There's no such this as sticky defense. Frontline in 2nd RB. Frontline, if applicable, and extend in summary.

You do not have to extend case in 1st RB.

I prefer the weighing done for me; as in a bunch of warrants, defense and turns will do nothing for me if they are not contextualized. I expect to hear why I should prefer your side with reference to warrants. I could maybe vote on something left off of FF, but I won't extend something from case/rebuttal to summary UNLESS it makes sense in the round (ie opponent brings it up again). Weighing should be comparative, doesn't help if both teams say they have a high probability without comparing to their opponent.

I do not flow cross-ex (but I do listen). if it's a new argument/warranting in CX, it should be in a speech. Be nice

As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed (unless it will be very fast/spreading) as long as you are clear. A speech doc will be well appreciated if you are speaking fast. I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous (ex: no shoe theory). Ks and shells are both ok. I default to reasonability. Please note I am not an expert with theory, and again speech docs will help me understand more. (especially in online debate)

Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 1-2 min to find it or send it out. Also, I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card. I know online debate means I can't enforce this too well so honor system.

About paraphrasing: It takes away from the education of the debate, I do hate it, and while I won't drop you (on face) for it, I won't like you any better if you give me 40 one-lined "cards" in case or rebuttal. Plus it just takes away from the round when your opponent has to call for 10 cards because you read them too fast. (Anti) Paraphrasing theory will pretty easily win my ballot if done well.

..............................................................................................................................................

Overall, I try my best to make the right decision (but I'm nowhere near perfect). If you have ANY questions feel free to contact me (syadavno1@gmail.com) or ask me before/after the round. Thank you!