I'm Anna (she/her). I’m a sophmore at Brown University. I coach PF for Durham where I debated from 2018-2021.

Add me to the chain: anna.brent-levenstein@da.org

TLDR:

At the end of the day, I’ll vote off the flow. Read whatever arguments, weighing, framework etc. you want. That being said, I don’t like blippy debate. Don’t skimp on warranting. If your argument doesn’t have a warrant the first time it’s read, I won’t vote off of it. I am especially persuaded by teams that have a strong narrative in the back half or a clear offensive strategy.

Specifics:

1. I always look to weighing first when I make a decision. If you are winning weighing on an argument and offense off of it, you have my ballot. That said, it must be actual comparative, well-warranted weighing not just a collection of buzzwords(e.g. we outweigh on probability because our argument is more probable is not weighing). Prereqs, link ins, short circuits etc. are the best pieces of weighing you can read.

2. Collapse and extend. I'm not voting off of a 5 sec extension of a half fleshed out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than 5 arguments poorly.

3. Implicate defense, especially in the back half. If it is terminal, tell me that. If it mitigates offense so much that their impacts aren't weighable, tell me that. Otherwise, I'm going to be more likely to vote on risk of offense arguments. Impact out and weigh turns.

4. I will evaluate theory/Ks/progressive args. When reading Ks, please make my role as a judge/the ROB as explicit as possible. Additionally, please know the literature well and explain your authors' positions as thoroughly and accessibly as possible. I see theory as a way to check back against serious abuse and/or protect safety in rounds. I will evaluate paraphrase and disclosure theory but find that the debates are generally boring so I won't be thrilled watching them.

I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. Respect your opponents and their pronouns.

Finally, I really appreciate humor and wit. Making me laugh or smile will give you a really good chance at high speaker points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round. I will disclose and give feedback after the round.

Fourth season as parent judge; practicing attorney (19 years).

I competed in high school speech and debate all four years back in the 1990s and have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for the last eight years.

Well reasoned arguments and high quality evidence are more convincing to me than twenty evidence cards- quality not quantity please! Speech and Debate is fundamentally an oral communication event and if I can't understand you your arguments can't persuade me.

Although NSDA rules allow citing sources as "Jones 2020", if I need to weigh competing evidence, knowing that "Jones 2020" is from The Washington Post instead of Wikipedia is important.

If you can't find the evidence in 30 seconds, we will move along- Organization is part of the preparation for this event.

Learning how to organize your thoughts quickly and how to stay cool under pressure/cross examination is a terrific life skill- this is an amazing activity and will help you in your later professional life no matter your high school win-loss record.

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I now debate APDA at Brown. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable and have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

Email for disclosure : hussain.zakir@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge, who has judged debate since 2016.

I'm a flay judge..

My preferences:

• I don't mind fast talking, but don't spread
• Don't be rude -- or you'll lose speaker points, and, potentially, the round. No personal attacks, discrimination, etc.
• Don't call out your opponent's mistakes to me -- debate your opponent and let me determine if they, for example, introduced new evidence or arguments too late in the round. Don't try to help me.
• If you have questions for me, ask before the round

My name is Alexis Johnson and I am a science teacher at South Mecklenburg High School. I am an experienced judge and will be looking for the debater to anticipate questions from his/her opponent(s) and have his/her cross questions and answers ready. Be sure to thoroughly understand your topic, and please make sure that all of your arguments, especially those containing definitions and statistics, come from a reliable source. I will be looking for you to not only poke holes in your opponent's argument, but provide ample support for your own!

Hello my name is Cory Johnson. I am a History teacher and a debate coach.

When I am judging there are a few things I look for:

1. It is extremely important that you have a clear link chain. As I am flowing, I want to be told how each point leads into the next. It is not my job to infer what you are trying to argue. You need to explicitly tell me each part of the argument, and how that creates your impact. If the impact is not made clear, I have nothing to weigh on and therefore voting for you becomes a challenge dependent on your persuasion skills alone. Please extend your cards, and your links, or I will consider them dropped. My final decision will be based on the flow, and how you interact with your opponent during the round.

1. Cross is not binding. In fact I will not even flow it. Cross ex is a time to gather information to then be used in rebuttal. It is also an opportunity for clarification and filling in your flow.

1. In an LD debate, the value is terminal. It is the primary voter issue, and as such must be woven into your contentions, and be present throughout the round, including your rebuttals. LD is a value debate and therefore it is not something to be mentioned briefly in your constructive and then forgotten. I am open to theory and K’s but understand if you take this route, you better be committed to it. Risking a theory to throw it away or using K’s arbitrarily does not sit well with me. It is important to weigh your argument against your opponent, while your value is the terminal issue, weighing gives me as a judge the ability to make an informed decision.

1. In a PF debate, your impact is the primary voter issue. As stated above, this must be made clear. An ambiguous impact leaves very little room for me as a judge to make an informed decision. I want to be told what the result of my vote is. I want to be told how my vote affects the topic at hand. This is where weighing becomes terminal. If you do not weigh your impact against your opponents, I see little to no reason to vote for you, as a lack of weighing leads me to believe your impact is not very important to the round. Within that weighing I want to see a clear comparison between you and your opponent.

1. When speaking, please be clear, and concise. I want to be impressed with your speaking ability, and this is how I decide your speaker points. DO NOT SPREAD! I prefer slower, more evocative speech, with impactful points of emphasis. I do not appreciate redundancy, especially in rebuttal. If you have to repeat yourself outside of the purpose of emphasis, it tells me you do not know what you are talking about.

2. A few extra miscellaneous points to keep in mind: I am a stickler about time. I will not flow anything said after time is up. It will not be considered when voting. It is also very important that you use off-time roadmaps, so I can follow your thought process. Finally keep the card calling to a minimum. Doing this excessively wastes too much time, and becomes annoying and frustrating. If you cannot rebuttal without seeing every card your opponent uses, that most likely means you need to do more research.

I look forward to judging you. Good Luck!

Background info: Former Policy Debater (Ohio), History, Government and Econ Teacher (NC), American History Professor (NC) BA in History and Poli sci, MA in American History (emphasis on Women's history). I now coach LD, PF, Congress and Speech events and have had the pleasure of jumping into World Schools.

I'm pretty easy going and do not mind spreading in LD so long as you are clearly speaking when doing it. Not such a fan of PF speaking super quickly as that's not really the point of that event. Make good use of time but don't rush it. Outside of that in these events feel free to ask for any other concerns you may have. Happy to answer before a round starts.

Update on WSD: I do value the flow but also want to see WS norms happening in the round. Take POIs and engage with each other when time allows. I'm not a huge fan of first speech getting into refutation as two other speeches do that I would rather 1st speech take some POIs and develop your sides case. Please remember this is WSD US centric arguments happen based on the motion but I really value some international attention happening regardless of motion as I think it shows broader understanding of the World as a whole .Not to mention a countries decisions do not occur in a bubble and international events do impact other countries decisions, US included.

im writing this for my mom:

lay judge (will flow)

be nice

go slow (~150wpm)

make sure your args are well warranted and are easy to understand

collapse by summary

extend your contentions in summary and final, also extend the responses you're going for

weigh in summary and final, make sure the weighing is comparative

Hey! I'm a 4th year high school PF debater :)

Above all, be civil!

Keep the round moving quickly-- if you want to pause between speeches, please take prep!

Preferences:

Speed, jargon, decorum, etc:

I'm OK with spreading if you're speaking relatively clearly. If your opponent asks you to speak slower make sure you slow down though. If you are an extreme spreader please send speech docs beforehand.

Most PF-specific debate terms are fine but please don't use policy or LD-specific terms. In general, I would prefer no policy-specific arguments in PF.

I like off-time roadmaps, and please signpost whenever you can.

Make sure crossfire is not just another speech for your side, even if the other team is being relatively passive. Both teams should be questioning each other! Also- I won't vote based on whether you're aggressive/assertive in crossfire or not. I feel that crossfire is mostly for the debaters' benefits rather than the judge, so I will probably not flow most of what you say in crossfire.

Arguments, weighing, etc:

I try not to extrapolate anything you say in round-- I'll take everything at face value, so if you want me to weigh a certain impact then please say it outright.

I will buy pretty much any argument with good links unless they're problematic/don't make any sense

I won't ask for cards myself, but make sure you're able to provide a card if your opponent asks for it. If you can't I may not weigh it.

Generally, I like to adhere to the principle of "no new evidence in summary, no new arguments in final focus" but I do understand that if a new argument is brought up in grand cross you may want to respond to it. But I won't weigh any new arguments and especially no new evidence in second final focus.

Speaks:

I won't subtract speaker points based on if you stutter or mess up words sometimes- it happens to us all- but I will if you run super over time in a speech or take long (like over 30 second) pauses. Points will mostly be based on the content of what you say, organization, clarity, etc.

I'm a Senior Principal Scientist in Robotics. I have experience in PF judging and am new to LD judging. For PF, I'm looking for good delivery in ethos, logos, and pathos, interaction in crossfires, and teamwork between two speakers. The clarity in explaining the arguments, proper use of the evidence with better analysis, and commutation effectively are keys to winning the debate.

GENERAL

Hi! I'm a varsity PF debater at East Chapel Hill High School with experience in impromptu.

In rounds I will judge based mostly on who can convince me their impacts are better (in any way, as long as I buy it). Strong links and well-organized arguments are also important, and confidence will factor into speaker points.

Please don't make personal attacks against your opponent, or excessively interrupt.

Trust your knowledge and have fun!

SPECIFICS

Please don't use policy or LD jargon in a PF round, as I've never debated those before and won't understand.

If an opponent asks for a card, just copy-paste it into the chat. If you can't provide it, it won't be flowed and the other team can bring up the lack of evidence in following speeches

I don't like spreading (talking too fast) but can tolerate it- if I can't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. I also won't flow more than ~10 seconds overtime on any speech.

Cross should be for asking and answering questions, not reading and repeating paragraphs of your own case- in general I will listen, but not flow. Be assertive and polite.

I prefer rebuttals labeled by contention, but as long as everything is organized it's not necessary.

There must be weighing in summary and final focus- make sure you tell me why your team should win the round and let me know what I'm voting on.

During online tournaments, I would recommend staying on a phone call with your partner throughout the round, so it's easy to talk during prep. Make sure to mute yourself on the phone when you unmute in the Zoom meet, or else there's feedback.