My paradigm is based mainly on impact. I want to see what the Competors pull through at the end of the round, and most importantly that they apply good analysis of the topic in general. All that means that you need to clash with your opponent’s arguments and show me why yours are more important or relevant to the debate, and why they matter.

Debate isn’t about burying your opponents in contentions, it’s about good use of arguments and rhetoric. Of course, I also believe decorum is important, and that the competitors are respectful to each other.

I expect a clear and organized debate. Make sure to speak clearly and loud enough so that that everyone in the round can hear you. Make sure that you are respectful and courteous to your opponents, especially during Crossfire. Cutting off your opponent when they are speaking is not useful or necessary.

I highly suggest you keep an organized flow and go line by line down your opponent's case whenever possible to ensure you address all their attacks on your case and can defend your key points. The win will go to the team that flows through the most points from case to final focus, effectively delinking their opponent's case and defending their own.

For Palatine: I feel like these rounds are getting messy and confusing. Please take time in your speeches to explain the WHY behind your cards.

Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

My fundamental principles:.

• It’s not an argument without a warrant.

• 'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.

• ‘Probability weighing also isn’t real

• Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.

• Judge intervention is usually bad.

view of a PF round:

• Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.

• Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.

• Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.

• Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.

• Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.

• If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.

• You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.

• Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
• Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.

Judging style:

• I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.

• weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus

• It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.

• Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense

• Miscellaneous Stuff

• Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there

• Have preflows ready

• open cross is fine

• Flex prep is fine

• K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.

• I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory

• I don't care where you speak from

• I don't care what you wear

This is my third year coaching and judging debate. My background is in speech and Model UN. I feel that debate is a valuable learning experience and I enjoy hearing new contentions that make me view the world from a different perspective.

I am a flow judge so I appreciate teams that provide lots of evidence and include relevant impacts. In PF, I give a lot of weight to voting issues and mostly award speaking points based on that. I value truth over tech.

Respect your opponents; they help you become a better debater.

Please be mindful of the time limits. I stop flowing after your time is up.

Have fun! I'm looking forward to hearing your arguments :)

for Fremd tournament: I know you've had a few tournaments with this resolution, but this is my first time hearing it. Don't assume I'm familiar with the topic or have heard any of the common arguments, abbreviations, etc.

Name: Anusha Jayaprakash

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging: 5 years

General:

- keep speed within reason; if you’re going too fast for me, I’ll put my pen down and look at you until you slow down

- I judge off the flow, lay everything out for me, I won’t make any assumptions or connections for you

- arguments need to be extended throughout the round; if something gets dropped and doesn’t make it to the end of the round, I won’t vote based on it

- give me clear voting issues, I don’t care who won more arguments, tell me why the things you won mean that you should win the round, weigh clearly for me, tell me why I should care about the arguments you won, why do they matter

- I don’t flow cross; if something important comes out make sure you bring it up in a later speech so it ends up on my flow

- keep track of your own time and prep time, if you opponent is going way over, let me know

- treat me like I know absolutely nothing about the topic, I haven’t done any of the research you have

LD:

- I don’t care who wins framework, just make sure you weigh under whichever framework is agreed on

- I don’t like pointless framework debate, if your frameworks are compatible, like justice vs morality, just collapse and move on instead of wasting time arguing which is better

PF:

- If you’re speaking first, it doesn't make sense to go back and defend your case before you opponent’s rebuttal

- the round should funnel down; your constructive and rebuttal focus on the line by line, by the summary you should pick voting issues and address the line by line arguments that tie into them, in final focus I don’t want any line by line arguments, focus entirely on the voting issues for the round and weighing them

- no line by line in final focus, it’s too late for that

Hi debaters! As a judge, to me the most important parts of the debate are focused on the latter two speeches. As times get shorter, I prefer that debates shift from reading out cited evidence, to impact-focused arguments.

Another thing I'd love to see is some impact calculus in the last two speeches. Don't just tell me you won the point, explain to me why you did.

Keep taglines short; I appreciate an organized debate.

Make sure debates stay respectful. Aggressive crossfires are common, but make sure it doesn't get to the point where I have to start docking speaker points.

One last thing to keep in mind; I don't weigh crossfire. If you want me to weigh it in my decision, you MUST bring it up during a speech.

GOOD LUCK! :)

I would prefer weighing mechanisms being used during your speeches.
make sure to speak clearly, speed isn’t an issue for me. Make sure your attacks align with the flow, don’t jump around.
I do flow through cross fire.

When judging I take a lot of notes, so if you make a good point I will make sure to put it down. It happens quite often, especially with strong teams, that the winner of the tournament is not obvious even after the tournament is finished - in this case I make my decision on the amount of facts and points presented.

For me factual examples and historical practices are incredibly strong as an argument.

Here and there there would pop up a weak point and a strong competitors should address that.

Also, I enjoy hearing arguments that are new and fresh - it shows that competitors have expanded their research.

I think that crossfires are an opportunity to rebuttal and contradict the opponents points and arguments and should not be wasted on clarifications, especially if there are not addressed later on.

I will give one extra half speaker point if you can somehow work the phrase "riddle me this" into the debate.

Also I love to see weighing in debates :)

I have worked with debate teams for sixteen years and enjoy a healthy argument. I look for a debate with solid evidence that flows through to the end. Framework and voting issues are also appreciated as well. Be respectful to each other and mindful that a healthy clash of ideas often brings forth a refinement of your side. I appreciate the side that weighs their impact.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Explicit signposting and road mapping is always appreciated. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

Seeing as these tournaments are for the purpose of debate, I first and foremost look for refutations that have been thoughtfully and intentionally woven into the line of reasoning. I want see that debaters have been paying attention to their counterparts and using others' arguments to further their own.

Additionally, I look for:

-Purposeful questions that indicate attentiveness to debate
-Being able to respectfully defend one's opinion
-Advocating for the overall success of the chamber (ie being mindful of recesses vs getting in speeches for others)
-Having an overall good attitude
-Respectful and purposeful humor
-Evident knowledge and logic
-Enjoying debate even in the competitive environment

I vote off the flow and the main points of clash. Please make sure to extend all of your evidence throughout all speeches or else I will be forced to drop it.

I don't flow crossfires but I will count it towards speaker points so be respectful.

If you have any specific questions about the way I judge, please ask them before the round starts.

I am a parent judge. This will be my first tournament judging.

Please speak at a slow, coherent pace with good inflection, especially considering we are wearing masks. Be respectful, as speaking in a condescending tone, especially during crossfire, will never be tolerated. When you are talking, make sure to compare your arguments to the other side and explain why your arguments are more important. Furthermore, signposting is very important to me. Tell me exactly what you are attacking throughout your speech. It makes flowing much easier.

In summary and final focus, please don't just restate cards. Truly compare your evidence and explain why your arguments are more important. Give me voters issues and clearly articulate them. That is the best way to ensure a good debate.

Most importantly, have fun!

This is my first tournament judging and I am a parent judge.

Please speak at a slow, consistent pace that is easy for me to follow. Tell me where you are in your speeches so it is clear where you are attacking on the flow. Crossfires should be respectful, with no harsh tones or rude body language. In your speeches, explain to me why your side of the argument is more prominent and should be outweighed in the round. Road maps are always appreciated.

For your final speeches, explain why your team has proved to me that you win the round compared to your opponents. Pay less attention to cards and more to weighing.

Don't forget to have fun, best of luck to all debaters!

School Affiliation: PALATINE

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 7 years

Speed of delivery- As long as I can flow it I am fine with spreading.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I like a big picture format for Summaries and a crystallization of the debate. Clean up attacks, let me know what you want to focus on, and introduce voter's issues

Extension of arguments into later speeches- All arguments should be extended if you want me to flow them through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow the entire round except for crossfires and final focus.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? To win the debate I value argument. To get high speaker points I value style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, that argument should at least be mentioned in those two speeches.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I don't require front lining - I think debaters should be allowed to deal with attacks against their own case in the summary. Unless we add more time to the second speaker's rebuttal this doesn't seem fair.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No.

TLDR: Focus on value and criterion in LD, don't misuse evidence in PF, and speak extemporaneously in Congress. Always warrant your arguments. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Thou shalt not go off-topic by using abusive "progressive debate" tactics such as kritiks, counterplans, or meta-analysis of debate. I am a traditional judge who flows and is tech over truth. If you think this is contradictory, you might spend too much time online.

In a debate round, most of all I'm looking for a clear, concise, and robust exchange of ideas. Some ways to work on this are to make sure you're signposting in all of your speeches, planning ahead to ensure that you're fitting the most important contentions and objections into the allotted time, and responding directly to the arguments and objections your opponents put forth in their own speeches. Do all of this without strawmanning your opponents (or committing any other major logical fallacies).

Most importantly, warrant: Don't take it for granted that your judges can see why your opponents are wrong, or that your contentions speak for themselves in response to challenges. Even if I do see these things, I can't score you well unless you are doing this work yourselves in the debate. Don't let any of your opponents' objections make it through the flow uncontested. Always warrant your claims. Cross-apply your contentions liberally in rebuttals so that I don't think you've dropped any of your own arguments.

I'm not a fan of most forms of "progressive debate," as I want you to make accessible arguments relevant to the resolution, not signal your position on whatever is currently in vogue. For example, if the resolution is about whether the United States should raise taxes on the wealthy, and you're arguing in favor of doing so, it is 100% okay (and probably a great idea) to give arguments about how capitalism can leave certain groups behind and how trickle-down economics only exacerbates wealth inequality and thus eliminates equality of opportunity. It is not germane to the resolution, however, to make all of your arguments about how capitalism is nothing but a tool of oppression and we need to abolish it, as this is not what is at question in the resolution. Similarly, I find meta-analysis of debate as an activity in-round to be grating. I will always favor the person/team using their speaking time to discuss the issue at hand in the resolution.

I'm also not a fan of counterplans because they shift the burden of proof in the round to the NEG/CON. The burden of proof belongs on the AFF/PRO. If you don't want to defend the status quo, I think you need to ask yourself why you're spending your free time doing this activity. As a coach and an instructor, the greatest value I see in debate is that it teaches students to charitably look at and adopt perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Using abusive "progressive debate" tactics to get around doing this robs you of the greatest benefit of doing debate, and robs your opponent of the opportunity to engage in a robust exchange of ideas about the actual topic of the round. Here I'll provide the analogy of papers: if a student handed me a paper that was well-written, but never actually addressed the topic they were supposed to write about (or worse, questioned the process of writing the paper in the first place), they would fail because they did not actually complete the assignment. The same is true in a debate round.

A note on speed: I don't mind spreading and can keep up with it as long as you don't talk like you have marbles in your mouth. But before you spread, consider that you will have many lay judges in this circuit who are unfamiliar with this speed or even hostile to it. Proceed at your own peril. Additionally, I often see debaters spread to try and overwhelm their opponents with cards to respond to without ever substantially developing or warranting their arguments. When I read student philosophy papers, I look for two things before anything else: clarity and concision. The lesson from this is that sometimes less is more because it forces you to focus on what really matters in the round, and as such you develop your arguments around key voting issues far more than you would if you were just hammering your opponent with as much evidence as possible.

A couple of notes on questioning: I'm not a fan of debaters interrupting or steamrolling their opponents. Be courteous and give the other team/person a chance to respond and to ask their own questions during grand cross while still using your own speaking time well. Being the loudest person in the room is not synonymous with being the best debater. I do not flow questioning, either. If you want something that came up in questioning to factor into my decision, you need to bring it back up in one of your speeches.

A final note on my ballots: I try to write pretty detailed ballots because I know how frustrating it is to lose a round and then not understand why, or to be told something vague or even get a blank ballot. I try to make up for this all-too-pervasive problem with debate judging by providing you with detailed feedback. However, I want you to understand that only the comments in my RFD directly factored into my decision. I'm writing comments throughout the round to you individually to try and provide feedback on your cases (especially because I know some of you may not have coaches), as well as your argumentation and speaking styles. Sometimes I will write things in the individual comments section that are my personal opinion on what makes a good case, or whether something is a convincing argument. As a tabula rasa judge, this kind of thing does not factor into my decision unless the other debater(s) call(s) you on anything I mention in one of their speeches. I provide this individual feedback not to explain my decision, but to potentially help you grow as a debater. The RFD is the true explanation of my decision.

For Lincoln-Douglas: If you're using a moral or political theory from analytic philosophy (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism, deontology/rights-based, virtue ethics, Rawlsian distributive justice/justice as fairness, any kind of social contract theory, principles from medical ethics, etc.) please make sure you know what you're talking about. I have way too many rounds where a utilitarian or consequentialist framework devolves into deontology or rights-based theory, and vice versa. Or worse, where a debater uses a contradictory value and criterion, such as pairing autonomy with consequentialism. And these are the simplest moral theories; the bar will be even higher if you choose Rawls or something more obscure. I'm not against you using these theories (in fact, as a philosophy teacher I want you to do so), I just want you to use them well and appropriately. I highly recommend that all LD debaters read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy extensively in order to better prepare for using and coming up against philosophical concepts in rounds. Theories from continental philosophy will be a tougher sell for me in general because they're even more difficult to use appropriately.

No matter what value and criterion you choose, make sure you're linking all of your impacts back to your framework throughout the round. A brief mention at the top of each speech is not nearly enough attention to framework in LD. Also, please don't make your value "morality." That's redundant. All of these resolutions have the word "ought" in them; morality is implicitly valued in the round. Saying your value is morality is like telling me you want to do something without specifying what you want. You're not actually giving me any real information here about how you're using a theory of value to evaluate the resolution at hand.

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again. Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congress debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

Be respectful and kind to your opponents during the round. Please speak clearly and signpost during the round so I can get everything you say. Please use voter issues so it is clear why I should vote for your side. Try to introduce voter issues in the summary and extend them to the final focus.

I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

Speaking tempo: Please speak slow enough to allow flow. If I put my pen down, it is because I have stopped my flow.

Experience: I have been judging Public Forum Debate for 2 years, and am a former congress and forensics coach.

I am a public speaking teacher and a parent.

Public Forum in essence is the clarity of persuasion. Clarity is driven by the ability to tell a compelling story that is supported by effective evidence. What I am looking for is the following:

Speeches

· Present your arguments in a clear and organized manner.

· Slowly speak; do not speed through your speeches. Assume I have never learned anything about the resolutions given. I want you to explain and debate as if I this is my first-time hearing about the topic.

· Robustly support your contentions with thoughtfully presented evidence. I am a truth over tech judge.

· Create realistic impacts that fall within the scope of the resolution. Do not pretend the world will end if it won't.

· Thoroughly understand your source. Be able explain how the study was done, who did the research, the credentials of the expert, etc. And be able to explain why this a strong piece of supporting evidence.

· Create a compelling story.

Crossfire and Grand Crossfire

· Propose incisive questions that the other team understands clearly.

· Succinctly answer questions using relevant evidence.

· Expeditiously produce the card for evidence if asked.

· Translate your thoughts into coherent speech quickly. Do your best to avoid "like," "y'know," and "um;" you are still speaking and being heard during cross; a judge should not have to ignore what you say or how you sound.

· Be polite and have respectful exchanges, and please do not talk over one another. Both partners should participate in grand cross.

Summary

· Explain which of your arguments flow through and weigh your impacts, noting which of your opponent's arguments you have discredited.

Final Focus

· Clearly present the weaknesses of the other side.

· Be able to extend the weighing mechanisms your partner used in summary to tell the end of the story.

Other Notes

· Make sure your judges are actually ready before you begin speaking. Don't simply ask them out of habit.

· Clearly demonstrate an understanding of the narrowness or breadth of the resolution.

· Oh, and do your best not to use nuclear war as an impact unless the topic is clearly of a military nature.

I am a former varsity second speaker in public forum debate. I debated all 4 years of high schools, did national circuit and local, was an octofinalist at IHSA, qualified for nationals, and have coached at a pf debate camp.

When evaluating the round it will come down to two main things

1: the flow. What is clean and presented to me, I'm tech over truth. With this being said, the easiest way to make sure your arguments are clean is to make sure you and/or (depending on if you're speaking first or second) your partner frontline.

2: Weighing. The back half of the round should be primarily focused on collapsing (picking an argument) and weighing. If you don't pick an argument and compare the impacts in the round with weighing, the round is gross at that point. Tell my why your argument matters more. If this isn't done I have no way to actually vote in the round and am left to search through my flow to find something to vote on. Don't make me search, do the work for me.

Show respect for your opponents for the round, you are all doing the same thing here, there isn't any reason to be disrespectful. I will take speaker points off for disrespect if it occurs.

With that being said sarcastic and joking debate is fun as long as it doesn't go too far, I respect it more in the varsity level rather than novice and jv.

Evidence disputes are fine, but don't make it a main issue. If there is a piece of evidence in question in the round, I'll look at it and decide if it falls anywhere in the round. If you spend over 3 minutes debating over a piece of evidence (It says this no it says this), I am dropping the evidence. It's a wash at that point, you are wasting too much time when you could be working, developing, and debating all other points in the round.

After the round if the tournament allows I will disclose, if you want to ask questions and post round me, fine do so, but it won't change my decision and if you are disrespectful, I will contact your coach.

Have fun and Good luck!

Hello everyone, I am a citizen judge (with a younger sibling who competed in congressional debate). This is my second year judging public forum. I personally have never participated in any sort of debate tournaments as a competitor (or as a coach, etc.), only as a citizen judge. I have really enjoyed judging these tournaments and I always learn something new each and every time. I value content over delivery (but please speak clearly and don't speak so fast that it is difficult to hear or follow what you're saying). I will evaluate each round based on the logic and clarity of your argument, and especially how you are able or not able to refute the opposing argument through your speeches, rebuttals, questioning in crossfire, etc.