Hi - I've judged several tournaments over the last year and I love hearing different points of view.

First -- make sure I can understand you. If you go fast and mumble, I won't hear your points and will have a hard time following your arguments. Ideally, enumerate your points so I can follow them and keep track of them throughout the argument. If you go fast, make sure I can get your points! Otherwise, focus on what's most important and share that with me.

Second -- use your time! If you have 4 minutes, make the most of it.

Third -- Cite your sources. It is important that you do this so I can compare evidence. Then tell me why those points are important.

Fourth -- (but probably most important) Be respectful. Good sportsmanship and being kind is important to me. If you insult or talk down to the other team, I will not be impressed.

Lastly, listen to the other team.

Good luck!

I have four years of experience in PF at Regis High School. That being said, I would prefer being treated as a lay judge.

My general conception of debate is as an edifying educational experience. As such, I prefer a team with an evidently good knowledge of the topic and debate to one that wins on every small point and technicality. I value a successful and intelligent comment in crossfire over an obscure pre-written argument or blocks.

With regard to arguments, I value standard, banal, "stock" arguments. The reason that they're "stock" is that they're generally true or have some merit to them. Uncommon arguments, by the same logic, tend to be crazy, improbable, or simply disconnected from reality. My ideal type of argument is "stock" with nuance. I also don't believe in ridiculous impacts. 90% of the time, as soon as you start talking about nuclear winter, climate extinction, or 5 billion people in poverty, I tune you out. That's because small tweaks to matters of national policy seldom have such massive impacts across the globe; regulating cryptocurrency will not solve climate change, nor will militarizing the Arctic push us over the brink of climate catastrophe. Unless you have a clear and sane explanation for your impact (not just some out-of-context card that says it will happen), I don't really pay attention to it. I certainly will not weigh it over a more rational, albeit smaller-scale, argument.

I don't consider Kritiks, theory, or any other crazy stuff. Public forum is necessarily a public forum. Your arguments should be accessible to anyone, not just people who do policy and understand debate jargon. More generally, I want you to debate the topic. If you spend half of your speech on issues of framing or theory rather than content, that is to your detriment.

Style-wise: Please don't spread! If I you speak at a faster clip, anything I don't catch is on you.

In summary and FF, focus on the narrative, not specific arguments. Make the round simple for me.

Lastly, have fun! It makes it more fun for me to judge and more enjoyable for you to debate.

Hi there!

My name is Spencer (he/him/his) and here are some guidelines that I hope you follow:

No signposting, no weighing, and most of all, if you reference nuclear war I’ll give you a cookie! Finally, whoever has the funniest argument automatically wins with 30 speaker points.

JUST KIDDING! (Please do signpost and weigh!)

Two more things:

1. I won’t flow your crossfire, but I will pay attention and if you use something from cross I will take that into account.

2. PLEASE REFERENCE JOJO MIGNONE’s PARADIGM!!! She has everything you will need.

** Assume that I am a flow judge, but lay on the topic

If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to be in summary and final focus.

I appreciate world comparisons, weighing, and logically explained arguments.

I do not like speed. I will not flow your arguments if I do not understand what you are saying.

I will decide your speaks based on the clarity and content of your speech.

In general

***Before you start your speech tell me which side of the flow you are starting on, and sign post clearly as you go along.

***Don't be a jerk.

***Please do not shake my hand.

Hello everyone! My name is Valeria Proekt. I began debating in middle school and have continued debating through high school. This is also my third year judging middle school debate.

A few things to note about my judging:

1. Please fill most, if not all of your time in a speech. Personally, I see it as a poor reflection of preparation if lots of time is left over, or for that matter, used after the clock is up.

2. I much prefer a speech with purpose, confidence, and conciseness, over a speech with lots of crammed information that is read at lightning speed. It's easier for judges, and opponents, to flow a speech that isn't rushed through, and good pacing gives you time to elaborate on each point. Speed debating is a huge pet peeve of mine, so please read at a moderate pace, this should be practiced before a tournament.

3. I will be keeping time, but I recommend you all keep time for yourselves to make sure you don't go too far under or over the clock.

4. Remember, you can not add any new information in your final focus.

5. In regards to jargon and technical language, as long as it is clear that YOU understand what you are saying (and you aren't clearly just using words to sound more knowledgeable without knowing what they mean), I have no issue with it. Feel free to use any topic-specific language you feel is necessary, there is no need to define every term you use unless you feel it helps your case.

6. When determining who won, I examine weighing most of all, followed by scope and magnitude. If an argument is dropped mid-round and is not addressed by the other team, it will not be considered as there is no follow-through.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them! I love answering any questions you might have. Remember, work hard, but also have fun, be confident, and enjoy your experience. I wish you all luck!

Good Morning or Afternoon! My name is Belmin Rama and if you are looking at this paradigm this means you are interested in seeing what is my experience or prefernces

I have been doing Public Forum debate for more than 10 years and 1 year learning about policy debate. I prefer students if they are able to time themselves, demonstrate great frontlining/rebuttals, provide an analysis between both your side and you opponents, use of weighing and impacts is much preferred. Im not crazy about crossfire since its not a speech, but an opportunity to poke weaknesses at your opponents arguments through questions. Just don't contradict yourselves

Timing yourselves is also key in my judging. This skill allows you to keep track of your time and you don't have to look at the judge to give time signals.

For my experience in speech, I have none what's so ever, but I am interested on the subject and would love to learn this style of debate.

Hello!

My name is Dina Rama, and I'm a junior at Columbia University majoring in financial economics. My pronouns are She/Her/Hers. If you have come across this page, it is most likely that you are wondering about my debate experience. I had competitively debated public forum as a sixth grader until my sophomore year of high school. I became a judge for the NYC Urban Debate League during my junior year and have judged both public forum and parliamentary debate. So, I have at least five years of experience as a judge and few years of experience as a debate coach for middle schoolers.

In order to determine the winning side of a debate round, I look for several things:

• If the team had refuted each of their opponent's arguments in a consistent manner throughout the debate round (not only in rebuttal).
• If the team had utilized statistics and evidence to support their arguments (this won't be the final deciding factor; however, evidence can significantly strengthen your arguments).
• If the team had consistently discussed the impacts of their arguments/contentions.
• If the team had consistently discussed magnitude, scope, and probability.
• If the team had weighed their arguments against the arguments belonging to their opponents.

It is important to understand what exactly does the resolution state and what is being debated. For example, if the resolution is, "The benefits of the International Monetary Fund outweigh the harms", it is important to understand that the resolution isn't asking whether or not the International Monetary Fund should be removed, nor is it asking for alternatives. Instead, the resolution is solely asking whether or not the benefits outweigh the harms. Always try to make sure that your speeches and arguments are targeted towards proving your side of the resolution.

add me to the chain: alyssa.santiago@lmghs.org

i like k's :) run anything you're good at though! i'm cool with policy-based debate too if cp's and da's are your thing.

If you want to play rock, paper, scissors with me before a round, I will not back down to such a challenge. (If you lose I won't doc speaks)

I'm a current senior at Horace Mann and have debate PF throughout HS so I can eval basically anything that isn't crazy out there. Essentially, read what you want and have fun. Specifically:

1. I can flow pretty fast just be clear (250 wpm should be safe). I will clear you if I can't understand you because you don't want me to miss something.

2. I can evaluate theory pretty well. I think a lot of theory debates are silly so I don't love them, but I do think that you should have the opportunity to check your opps practices and should be able to defend your own. Some specific things you should know for me: RVIs only refer to defensive reasons to reject the interp not offensive ones, I will default to yes RVIs yes Reasonability, If you are reading theory on a team that clearly is less experienced, do not just beat them on some technical concession, line by line the warrants, IVIs are fine as long as they are actually simple and not just a compressed, poorly worded shell (I will not hack against no IVIs args).

3. I presume for the side not advocating for something other than the squo (but I will vote in other ways if warrants are read)

4. Not a great judge for the K but I will do my best. I've read Cap before and can evaluate stock Ks for the most part, but I def won't evaluate them super technically and hope you will explain them well. Also not opposed to identity Ks. (A general rule I will follow is that if I don't understand any argument well enough to explain it back in my RFD than it wasn't warranted well enough to vote on it.)

5. Speaks are arbitrary. I don't care how well you "speak" I will give points out based on strategy in round/creativity.

6. Ethics>Tech>Truth. I try my very hardest not to intervene. However, the more ridiculous the arg the easier to beat it, so read what you want.

Victoria Sepp (any pronouns)

Email: victoria.sepp@lmghs.org

OV:

role of the ballot is important for me, pls emphasize this when u can

I am a protector of my flow and I am a tech > truth or tech < truth judge as I see fit. For example, if you drop an argument in a round, I will have to weigh that against you unless you have a reason for dropping it, which I consider is still tech and will go onto the flow of the argument (tech > truth). If you analytically say something, and I know that it is wrong, then I can't vote on what is said (truth > tech). The goal is to tell a realistic audience that has some background knowledge why a plan is preferable or worse (I guarantee you that no tabula rasa judge is actually unbiased, and that's just how it works in the real world). Otherwise, I have no opinions for what types of speeches are ran.

BE MINDFUL: I do not tolerate anyone who targets any person for any reason (ie. race, gender, sexuality, orientation, impediments, etc.) Keep swearing to a minimum, use pronouns in-round correctly, and use trigger warnings for sensitive topics and make sure the other team is okay with it. Don't run affs or negs that don't suit the debater (ie. a white student running a black exploitation performative aff against African American students). <-- be very conscious.

________________________________________________

For all speeches:

Multiple worlds: I am perfectly fine with plans that happen at once, but you have to say in-round if smth is multiple worlds because then I would have to assume both plans would happen at the same time.

Case: I cannot stress enough that you need to extend case. If you don't reiterate your solvency or a solvency deficit, I cannot vote for you.

K's: would vote on these but I wont vote up vague alts.

T's and Theories: I have no problems w/ these.

Framework: Please extend your framework. If you can tell me in-round your framing, framework, and the role of the ballot, I will be impressed and it will give me reasons to vote for you and how I should look at the debate as long as you provide standards.

New arguments: Don't waste time with these, I will know when a new argument is brought up when it's too late (anything new in the block).

Spreading: I'm fine with spreading, just please read the tags slower. I flow by ear, and if I can't hear parts, I will not count them.

Cross: I'm fine with open cross.

TPM: give me reasons why your timeline, probability, and magnitude are preferable for your plan. It makes it look more realistic and implementable unless you have a reason as to why these don't matter.

_________________________________________________

Aff: I have no opinions on what aff is run (and the type of aff). Defending yourself from the neg is good, but you also need offense (why you solve), or why your plan is preferable.

Neg: I'm down with any neg speech as long as there is some detriment to the aff.

Good luck!

also if u wanna tell me ur zodiac or talk abt fnaf lore before the round, that'd be nice :)

Hi! My name is Evelyn and I am currently a high school policy debater and judge. I competed in PF debate for two years, and below I provided a list of things I look for when judging both PF and Policy rounds. Feel free to read it over and take a few minutes to prepare before the round starts.

PF Preferences:

1. I flow each part of the debate, but I usually don't take crossfire into consideration. Make sure to state all of the necessary rebuttals in your summary and final focus.

a. Do not add anything new in FF. If you add a new thought or rebuttal in final focus I will take points off!

2. If you would like to pull any cards, please pull them during YOUR prep. Time will not be counted during the search.

3. Please refrain typing in the chat while the other team/your teammate is speaking. You are allowed to put sources in the chat if the opposing side asks your team for it AFTER they are done speaking.

4. Interrupting is fine when you are responding to an argument, but not when you are preventing your opponents from making one.

5. I will be timing the speaker, but I recommend you also time yourself. I will NOT warn you once time is up. If the speaker goes overtime, I will flow all claims ten seconds after time is up. After those ten seconds, I will no longer be taking note.

6. If the opposing side does not respond to a claim/response, there's no need to repeat it. It is a waste of time.

9. Weigh a lot in final focus (and summary). The final focus is the last thing I jot down from each team, so try to weigh as much as you can.

Speaker Points: Losing team starts at 26. Winning team starts at 27. I do not go any lower than 26 unless discriminatory and/or racial language is used.

Policy Preferences:

1. I use Bergen County Debate League judge sheets to flow and judge.

2. I am well aware of the five pillars of debate, but please be specific in both affirmative and negative when referring to specific details that pertain to the pillars, as it's easier for me to go back on my judge sheet and see your arguments.

3. Use up all your time, I take off a point every 30 seconds you go over/under in the speech.

4. You are not permitted but can answer questions in crossfire after time is up.

5. I've won multiple judge awards for policy debates so there is no need to remind me specific regulations during your speeches (such as the idea that you only need to break one pillar to win on NEG), it is a waste of time as I am aware of the rules.

6. If AFF and NEG tie, NEG automatically wins.

Speaker Points: I look at analysis, evidence, organization, and presentation and present individual and overall points for each category depending on the ballot.

If you have any questions before or after the round, please feel free to ask. I will not disclose the results at the end of the round.

Lastly, be confident! Good luck.

Hi I'm Peggy (she/her) and I do PF at Saigon South

general stuff

if you're not nice and respectful, i will be upset and your speaks will suffer :)

i'm a flow judge, unless im judging MS kids.

tech > truth.

warrant everything.

speed

speed is fine. i tend to speak really fast during my own round as well. however, if you're mumble rapping your case like future, i will not understand you or even try. speak fast but speak with clarity pls.

extensions

i care a lot about extensions. you should not expect me to fully understand your argument if you only mention it once or twice during the entire round. i can't vote on arguments that i dont even understand.

cross

my favorite thing in pf even tho it doesn't affect my decision. i just like watching interactive cross. don't dodge questions, don't be unnecessarily aggressive and don't ask(say) things that are not in a question form. if you start reading an entire card during cross, i will get annoyed.

weighing

actual comparative (good) weighing makes me happy. please please please don't just throw weighing mechanisms into your speech and think you win. generally prefer better-weighed arguments.

speeches

- signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. roadmap is kinda unnecessary but idm

- anything not responded to in 2nd rebuttal is dropped. offense and defense in rebuttal are equally important to me.

- weighing in summary and ff should be consistent. you will make my life 10x harder and make me very confused if its not.

- collapse in back half but dont collapse and leave it unwarranted.

final words

just make debate fun and entertaining to watch. don't be sad if you lose, learning is the most important.

I am a former pf debater, I value weighing and clarity above most other things. Make the debate easy for me, do some interesting thinking and reasoning, and keep things light and fun!

Hi guys, My preferences are: That debaters not spread, if I cannot follow your arguments it is hard to persuade me, this does not mean you cannot speak fast, you can but do not be Eminem in rap god. That crossfire is friendly to a certain extent. Being rude and/or cutting a speaker off will lose your points. This is only my second year of debating, but I have been to many debate competitions in those years, so I will try to give you guys the best feedback I can. Good luck!