I am a Junior at Fairmont Prep and I have been debating public forum for a little less than a year. I have also had moderate debate experience from middle school on the side. However, it is best to treat me like a lay judge.

Truth > Tech. I will vote for the side that makes the most sense. Explain to me clearly why you should be winning this debate. Clearly compare your arguments to theirs.

Avoid using very technical terms. Don't use words like "short circuit" "Delink" "Nonunique" etc.

This should go without saying, but obviously avoid reading kritikal arguments, theory, and other off-topic args. I will probably have no idea what's going on and will be very confused.

Give an off time roadmap before each speech.

Pre-flow before the round.

Also I am very new to the judging process, especially online, so please be patient to any errors I make.

Hi my name is Zen (he/they pronouns).

lmcagley0406@gmail.com

A little about me, I'm a freshman in college and the a previous debate captain for FUHS/ARA and have two years of experience doing PF. Currently I'm learning LD but I have VERY basic knowledge of how it works so I'm sorry. I have an audio processing disorder so I will request cases to the email listed above to insure I have the correct information for the flow.

I do not tolerate any racist or homophobic arguments and teams who do so will be immediately dropped. The same thing applies if you read any triggering content without consent from me and your opponents. If you wouldn't say it to your mama, don't say it to me.

I am open to all other forms of debate but I have limited knowledge of theories and Ks. So if it's complicated to you, it's probably gonna fly over my head. And please for the love of whatever you believe in PLEASE SIGNPOST. I mean it. If I don't know where you're flowing I'm not gonna put much effort to look for it to be honest. It's your job, not mine. Also if you need me to cross out evidence or need me to cross apply for clash, again please signpost. 

I will vote for the team that has the cleanest side of the flow, clashes the best and above all weighs! WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Debate isn't fun without it. Meta weighing is also ok or however deep you go is alright with me. 

I do take off speaker points for not signposting

I allow a 10 second grace period but please don't take advantage to speed run another argument

Anything I forgot or you just need to ask any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts!

Hi! I'm a junior at Northwood High. I've done speech and debate for about two years, and I've competed in 3 PF tourneys.

Having said that, a few things y'all should keep in mind:

I prefer a moderate-ish speed, but going faster/slower is fine too. You can spread, but I probably won't understand it if you go too fast. Remember not to drop arguments; I will be flowing. Try to remember to time yourselves, since that's going to be pretty important later on, but I will be timing too, so if you forget, it's totally fine!

And with that, I wish y'all good luck!

Email chain: derekqchang@gmail.com

Experience: he/him, 3 years PF and 3 years of WS, 3 year judging

TLDR:

I vote off of impact calc, tech > truth, spreading is discouraged, please signpost and make contentions clear or else I'm not going to consider it in my flow, build off each other

BE RESPECTFUL - I will vote against you and crater your speaks if you are excessively disrespectful

Long Version:

Weighing:

- plz weigh in FF and Summary, impact calc must include considerations for magnitude, timeframe, probability, weighing of 2 worlds, etc

- impact is really important - even if your opp drops all their args but u have no impact then they still can win (dependent on burden)

- optional but I would HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend mentioning past rebuttals and the contention when giving rebuttals so I can extend them through the entire flow and give opponents the opportunity to respond, having every opportunity for clash is what makes a productive debate

Rebuttals

- tech > truth, so use cards/evidence (not relevant to impromptu)

- clearly explain your logic, link, what you are attacking, etc.

Summary/Reply

- anything you bring up in 4th speech must have been brought up in 3rd speech or else it won't be weighed and will be dropped from flow

- no new arguments and no new evidence in FF, i will dock your speaks

Cross/POIS

- I don't flow cross or POIs so anything important in cross or POIs that you want on the flow must be reiterated in later speeches

Framework:

- if its something other than CBA, yes bring it up

also plz warrant and extend warrant

Shoutout: Sunny Sun for letting me borrow dis

Policy @ Northwood -> UCLA '26 (Environmental Science/Conservation Biology)

Email Chain - alexfu004@gmail.com

LD and PF paradigm at bottom

TL;DR

Debate is a game, do impact calc, I'm more familiar with Policy strats, clipping is bad, and clarity on analytics is important. Tech determines Truth.

F'23 Update: I'm only vaguely familiar with the topic (~15 rounds judged) so if you start using fancy econ jargon I might get lost, please slow down on analytics, especially in the T debate.

General

Don't be a bad person, you've seen it on other paradigms, no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, etc.

DA/CP

I love them! Your disads should be specific to the aff, but generic links are ok too if you can spin it well enough. Condo is probably good, int'l/private/object fiat is probably bad. I mainly read process counterplans and states in high school so make of that what you will.

K

I'm pretty familiar with a few Ks but don't go for that many of them, barring things like Cap and Security. Case specific links would be great! The Aff should explain the perms instead of just throwing them out there, at least by the 1ar but preferably in the 2ac. I'll treat framework like an impact debate, but I tend to lean weighing the aff.

Ks I'm more familiar with: Cap, Berlant/Suffering, Yellow Peril/Orientalism, Security, Militarism

Ks I'm less familiar with: Deleuze, Bataille, "pomo"-esque Ks (with reason)

T

I'll vote on it, but I'm persuaded by reasonability more than other judges. The neg needs to win a clear instance of abuse beyond just "it's what they justify," and the Aff ideally should have specific reasons why the counterinterpretation resolves or turns neg offense.

Nontraditional Affs

I have very limited experience with reading K affs (maybe 2 or 3 times), but I'm receptive to them. I think that having a stasis is necessary for debate, and I think that fairness is good, whatever fairness means. That said, I do think that K Affs can provide unique educational value, and if the Aff can prove their aff is important to talk about certain issues I can still buy it. Framework is probably your best 2NR against K Affs, I went for education and movements mainly in my junior and senior year in high school but I can be persuaded to vote on fairness as well.

Theory

Reject the arg, not the team is persuasive in almost every case, condo aside. I lean neg on condo; I can be persuaded otherwise, but it's an uphill battle for the aff to win on it. International and Object fiat are probably illegitimate, and require more work to be done on theory if you want to win on them as the neg.

Speaks

• being creative, strategic
• clarity, especially when spreading through analytics
• efficiency between speeches, sending out docs, etc
• if you're funny
• clear signposting!
• i was inspired by another judge but please get me food (+0.1? speaks) (but dont bankrupt yourself it's not worth it) (better to just speak better probably)

LD

I'll judge it like I judge a policy round, and I'm not familiar with a lot of LD theory. I'll try to adapt but please exercise discretion.

Public Forum

I used to do PF, don't worry about having to adapt too hard

Everything above applies, don't spread if your opponent is not okay with it though. Don't read policy-esque arguments just because you can, PF probably should be a bit more accessible. I'm more receptive to Ks than most PF judges, but don't read incomplete arguments i.e. a K without an alt just because PF doesn't have advocacies.

hi, I'm Ryan!

currently a second-year at yale; 4 years of PF w Fairmont Prep; toc 4 times, elims twice

debate to win but do so jovially (when possible) and kindly (always)

I'll evaluate rounds w as much good faith as possible, but I am partial to some standards:

• handle everything that matters in the 2nd rebuttal (all offense, all weighing, any defense on the args you want to keep in play)
• defense is not sticky, so extend anything u need in the 1st summary
• weighing is important, I believe it's conceded if not responded to in the next speech

I generally prefer evaluating less offense (hopefully 1 piece, 2 max) with good warrants, analysis, and comparative weighing

in the realm of progress, I don't require any specific structures in responses to progressive arguments; if you read theory, collapse on theory (I evaluate RVI's)

feel free to ask any questions @ ryan.gumlia@yale.edu

I am a flay judge, more so on the flow side. Currently a college freshman judging for Fairmont. I’ve done PF for 6 years and I’ve qualified to TOC three times and went 4-3 twice.

My microphone on my headphones aren't working so I will be speaking through the chat during the round.

Please send case and rebuttal cards through an email chain before the round for the sake of time.

My email is rohunx12@gmail.com

Speed is fine with me as long as you are clear and send a speech doc.

To win my ballot, you just need to win one contention or turn (aka offense) and then also explain to me why that matters more than your opponent's offense (aka weighing).

To win your offense, you must extend each step of the logical link chain and the impact. I don’t really care about card names as long as the warrant is extended unless the card name matters in the round. You only need to extend in summary and final focus (aka the back half).

However, if you do not extend a key link in the offense you go for, I won’t automatically drop your argument unless it is the 2nd final focus. Your opponents must point out that mistake and use it as a response (aka defense). That means that if a team only talks about their contention by name and doesn’t extend it properly, they can get away with that if the other team doesn’t point it out. I’m only a blank slate after all.

To win your offense, you must also respond to your opponent’s responses (aka frontline). I prefer if the responses are responded to immediately in the next speech, which means 2nd rebuttal should ideally frontline the offense they intend on going for in the back half. It’s not a must, but it will get you extra speaks and a competitive advantage in the round for the reason below:

Defense is sticky from 1st rebuttal to 1st final focus. In other words, the 1st summary does not need to extend defense from the 1st rebuttal if it is not responded to in the 2nd rebuttal. Otherwise, defense that you want on my ballot must be extended and also defended from your opponent’s responses to it (aka backlining)

No fancy rules for weighing, just make sure you do it. If both teams do it, make sure you explain why your weighing mechanism matters more than theirs. Debate is comparative at the end of the day. My whole job as a judge is to compare y’all’s sides with my own analysis, so why not do that for me and write my ballot?

Finally, if you want to run prog like theory and Ks, I’m completely open to it. I’ve ran theory before and I generally believe that disclosing is good and paraphrasing is bad.

HOWEVER if the round has multiple theory shells (excluding the counterinterp of course) OR if the round is a K round, then you’ll have to treat me like a lay and go slow. I have a minimal understanding of K’s and I have found that for me, the round becomes hard to follow if there are multiple theory shells presented on both sides so you just gotta dumb the round down for me.

If the debate is substance though then go as tech as you want. Use defense to kick out of offense, go for a double turn, do whatever.

Lay judge—originally from speech part of the activity.

more value in slower and clearer argumentation than shooting as many points as possible

I am a very lay judge, so please speak legibly and do not spread. One main thing that I look for is the use of logic in your arguments. I know that debate is very heavily reliant on evidence and cards, but if you can connect those cards to your argument or refute arguments without solely using cards, I will favor your side.

I’m a lay judge. Don’t spread, speak clearly, and collapse on your arguments.

LOL JK - I’ve debated PF for all 4 years of HS but if you treat me like a lay and go slow or make the round entertaining somehow I’ll give you extra speaks!

Preferences

• I can handle some speed, but speak clearly. If I can’t understand something in Constructive, I can’t evaluate it.
• FOR ROUNDS WITH HEAVY SPREADING SEND SPEECH DOCS ESPECIALLY FOR CONSTRUCTIVE AND REBUTTAL
• Collapse and on your arguments and weigh to make it easy for me to vote
• Don’t bring entirely new arguments in second summary, if your opponents call a timeskew, I’ll accept it
• I’m familiar with Theory, Ks, and progressive debate, but I’m not too good. If you plan to go prog, treat me like a lay and go slow.
• Always be respectful and courteous to your opponent

If you have any other questions about me or my preferences feel free to ask my before round :)

My email: ibu4404@gmail.com

^you can add me to the email chain if you want, but it’s fine if you don’t. If I need a card I’ll ask for it.

Hi everyone! I was a PF debater in high school. Please don't run a K or frivolous theory. I'm fine with speed just send me a doc ahead of time at rkap2024@gmail.com. I don't needed to be added to the email chain unless necessary.

Feel free to email me with questions ahead of round! Good luck.

Hi! My name is Jenna, and I'm a sophomore at Cornell University. I did Parli for a year and Public Forum for three years back in high school. Now, I've been doing college policy for two years :) I typically run trad policy stuff, but I'm used to hearing (and sometimes running) K's and T - so you can probably get away with running most things. Contact me for email chains at:

jzhou0303@gmail.com

--

For LD: I'm pretty new to coaching LD, but I do have my policy experience to supplement my understanding.

Good with evaluating traditional arguments all around, and I can definitely handle spreading. However, for online tournaments, I'd suggest speaking at a slightly slower speed so I can hear you and your mic doesn't cut out. My wifi is kinda spotty, so I may ask for speech docs. I understand what a value/value criterion are, but I've never actually competed with them; I'm still in the process of learning about them. I am used to progressive framing, though.

I'm fine with evaluating some of the wackier progressive arguments, like high theory or tricky T stuff, but keep in mind that I might not know what you're talking about!! I know the more basic stuff like Foucault's biopower and Baudrillard's simulation theory, but I will not know what you're saying if you start talking about Deleuze. There is a limit to these sorts of things!!!

--

For PF: I think paraphrasing cards is alright, but I will call for cards if necessary (or if you ask me to).

I'll understand spreading, but it's somewhat unadvisable because your mic might cut out. Please signpost in your speeches or else I won't be able to flow!!

No impacts, no dub >:) Trigger warnings are great! Please read them when you find them necessary. Please go hard and roast each other in cross (I won't flow it though lol).

--

I'll evaluate theory in PF, I'm alright with RVI's, and you should feel free to run trix (but keep in mind that I might get lost).

hey, i'm mac (she/her)! i competed in pf for fullerton and astor redhead academy. last year was my third year in public forum debate (and i pretty much exclusively compete circuit). i qualified to toc in my sophomore year and senior year (jr year was just too busy) and i've qualified to ca states all four years. i would say that i mostly know what i am doing, but don’t assume that means i will always understand what is going on in the round. please disclose all ev you read in round: maclynndee@gmail.com

tldr if you don’t wanna read all the bottom stuff: i am a flow judge (but i am definitely prone to mistakes) with some flay preferences. i don’t like excessive speed and i am inexperienced in a lot of prog (basically anything that’s not non-friv theory) arguments. tech > truth.

couple of important things for me:

• disclosing is literally such a good practice and it saves so much time so if you disclose on the wiki and tell me ill boost ur speaks like .1

• don't spread. it's speech and debate not doc and debate and i don't want to have to flow off a doc. i have a pretty bad threshold for spreading so maybe err on the side of caution.

• u can run theory. i dont care. but just explain ur warrants as well as u would explain them any other case. friv theory and tricks lowkey suck but im tech > truth so if u warrant it in the backhalf it’s fine.

• u can run a k or any other type of prog args but i am super unfamiliar with it. but i will vote for anything that has good weighing and good warrants but know im really really really inexperienced in kritikal arguments

• im tech > truth (even if someone tells me the sky is orange. i will believe the sky is orange unless someone says otherwise)

• even tho i said this^^ it doesn't mean you can have bad ev. like you can read it and if nobody contests it i'll let it flow through the round but i will def lower ur speaks.

• anything in 2ss and ff has to have been in the speeches prior

• i don't really like extinction scenarios, but if you run it do it at ur own risk. i just feel like all of the warranting and links to extinction are super bad. if u run it warrant it super well and im tech > truth so ill evaluate it if nobody contests it. but basically it comes down to magnitude (extinction) vs probability (any argument) and you need to give me really really good warranting and weighing as to why i should prefer it. basically PLEASE JUST WARRANT AND WEIGH LIKE CRAZY FOR EXTINCTION.

• don't just extend author names because odds are i didn't catch it in the first place. extend warrants and links if u want me to vote for it.

• i'm pretty expressive, use my facial expressions as a sign of how u are doing in the round

• signpost + offtime roadmap pls, i need it soso badly bc i flow a lot

• please collapse. going for like three arguments isn't even helpful for you and if it was, it hurts my head thinking about all three arguments. it's so helpful if u just pick one for everyone in the round.

• weigh. like 90% of the time i vote for the team that does the best weighing.

• stop being so mean in debate! literally in twenty years when you have a job and a family nobody will care that you doublefinaled at a random tournament in the middle of nowhere. debate's a learning activity and it's hard to learn when someone is being mean to you. trophies r just plastic y’all.

• be funny ESPECIALLY in cross for higher speaks. i probs wont listen to cross anyways. cross is rarely useful for me in a round so if u can make me actually want to watch it then ur amazing. if u wanna skip grandcross for an extra minute of prep and both teams r ok with it idc

• make me laugh and ill boost ur speaks .1

• if ur gonna run anything with (sexual) violence, even if it's not graphic, PLEASE run an anonymous trigger warning. u don't know anyone's trauma and what they've gone thru.

• do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or discriminatory in anyway or you will get l20ed

other than that, the round is mostly up to you. if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts! if anything or anyone (including me) makes you uncomfortable during the round and you don't feel comfortable saying it out loud, please do not hesitate to email me privately so i can address the issue. please do not postround me. i can always clarify a decision but often a judge has to submit their ballot before the rfd so even if you somehow change my mind (you probs wont), there is literally nothing i can do about it. i will always always always be willing to go over my ballot with you as long as the tournament doesn't penalize teams that do it. just have fun. good luck :)

Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a sophomore in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF (mainly middle school and novice).

Add me to the email chain: samsemcheshen@gmail.com

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

All:

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

Speed is fine but don't full on spread, especially if we are online.

Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If I look annoyed, that's probably just because I'm tired, but if I make it very obvious that I have stopped flowing and I am just staring at you, you're probably doing something wrong. Fix it, I'll be happy. Don't, well it will reflect in your speaks and possibly in my decision.

Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to solely rely on me.

Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or the speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.

HOWEVER, I don't know why I keep seeing this but online people are just starting to take prep without saying anything. Please don't do this or else I am going to have to nag to make sure you're not stealing prep. If you're gonna take prep please just say so before you start.

SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.

Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.

Weighing is cool, you should probably do it. I enjoy a good prereq, linking into your opponents' contentions is one of the best things you can do.

I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.

Also, reading whole cards in cross is my pet peeve. Try not to do that.

Some evidence things!!!!:

• To save time, set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
• On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long it should take to exchange evidence, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a "card" they just read in their speech and like ???? You either got the card or you don't.
• If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
• To help enforce better norms, if I see that when your team's evidence is called for, it is properly cut and shared in an appropriate way (AKA not pasted into zoom/NSDA campus chat or handing each other your laptops), I will give your team a speaks boost. All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.

PF:

PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.

I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

Frontlining is very important and should be done as soon as possible. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Frankly, if the other team comes up and says that only frontlining in summary is unfair, I'll probably agree with them and you'll be out of luck.

If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. Don't just spam your impact numbers, remind me how you get there. If you don't think you have time for that, then maybe you should have been collapsing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Basically, if you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.

Other:

For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad.

I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway, make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.

If I'm allowed to, I typically disclose and give feedback. If you have questions about my decision or want specific feedback, I'm happy to explain as long as you are going about it in a respectful way.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)