Please keep your delivery slow and clear. Speaking quickly is fine, but if I can't actually understand what your evidence is saying, I will likely not give that evidence as much weight.

Please approach each round as an opportunity to learn and with respect for your opponents. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Hi, I'm Allison (she/her) and I competed in Public Forum for 4 years in high school and in Worlds debate at the National Tournament for 3 years. I am also the daughter of two debate coaches and have grown up in the activity.

Public Forum:

I am a traditional Public Forum judge. The biggest thing I ask of any debaters I judge is that you persuade me to vote for you. Your FF should be spent spent weighing the round for me, I will not do it for you. I will only vote on points that are carried through from summary to final focus. I do not prefer off time roadmaps. Respect and be kind for your opponents.

I'll be flowing the debate but don't expect me to weigh the debate on an issue if you don't touch on that issue during your final speeches. Use the first three speeches to win the debate, use the last speech to tell me WHY you won the debate.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm not a fan of progressive argumentation so use only when necessary, I would much rather see a traditional Value-Criterion debate. I can handle some speed. Depth > breadth. Make sure you have clear signposting and use voters! If you do not weigh your impacts, I will not weigh them for you and you will drop my ballot.

All debate styles: The best debaters are the ones who know the most, prove to me you're the debater who knows the most.

Also feel free to ask any questions before the round if you need clarifications. Good Luck!

hi! i'm rachael (she/her) and you can reach me @ rachaelahoang@gmail.com if u have any questions or concerns!!

general:

1. i'll evaluate any argument you can think of, however, in the case where the safety of a debater is compromised (be it an -ist argument/lack of a TW on a sensitive topic) i will intervene & probably give you low speaks (20 + L)!! misgendering is not ok, tab has the option to specify pronouns for a reason.

2. speed is ok ??? i'll probably understand you (but like... if it's pufo maybe don't)

3. homegirl wants to see analysis on why ur args matter !!! spell it out for me

4. calling for ev -> not saying anything abt it is not the greatest look

round:

1. second rebuttal must frontline turns - conceded turns/contentions in rebuttal have 100% strength of link

2. defense is sticky (rmbr to frontline!!)

3. extend ur args, if they're dropped in sum then don't expect me to care about them in ff

4. jargon is fine (but also????? pufo???)

5. be nice!

weighing:

1. weighing ideally should start in rebuttal. i'm not evaluating new weighing in final focus, get to it sooner!!!

2. probability impact weighing doesn't exist ...unless? @jacob sawyer thinks it's the most important!!

3. metaweigh/comparative weighing please ?!

speaks

1. i said speed was fine but if i can't understand what you're saying, you will be docked speaks (so maybe slower speaking >)

2. low speaks for pretentious speakers. you are not the smartest person in the room, sorry to break it to you!!

3. don't do double breaths and you'll probably get at least a 27? (https://youtu.be/0FPsEwWT6K0)

4. abusive args = low speaks

5. if u want extra speaks, follow me on spotify for +.5 speaks ?! https://open.spotify.com/user/u1wgswq8i6jkcaqm1rpodmj8t?si=0ea5201f18334338

i'm most receptive to substance but i'll do my best to evaluate whatever you read.

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

update for bellevue: I will be a lay, won’t flow, be slow and put thought into how you phrase and present your arguments!

ask questions before round if you have any

i'm a senior in pf, i debate both local and nat cirq.

i vote on arguments within the round, so pls extend warrants and weighing.

in other words, im more tech > truth, but don't be rude/insensitive/commodifying args.

i require content warnings if you plan on reading sensitive arguments. better to assume it is sensitive than not.

feel free to email me if u hv questions /want further feedback (karlume9@gmail.com)

Specifics:

2nd rebuttal should frontline. no sticky defense. pls weigh, but only when you are winning case. don't bring up entirely new arguments in 2nd summary/2nd ff. I need parallelism (summary+FF) for any offense you want me to vote for.

analytics can equate to evidence if they are well warranted (half of pf is just reading basically blog posts as warrants, an analytic is not akin to a study but it definitely can match chen 18.) that said evidence without warrants is pretty useless in context to debate rounds.

if a piece of evidence is contested throughout the round i'll call for it myself. i will drop speaker points as well as arguments when teams knowingly use misconstrued cards to further their game. if your opponent reads theory about evidence ethics or suggests i drop you over ethics i'll probably go for it (if i can verify the violation they present me in your evidence).

i will understand vernacular/jargon. i'm fine with speed under 450 if the round is between noon and four pm, otherwise pls stay under 350. send speech docs if you plan on spreading and want me to be guaranteed to follow

i might listen to 1st and 2nd cross, probably not grand tho. i approve of using grand cross for non-strategic purposes such as discussing educational topics or if we live in a simulation.

signpost pls

I will flow some during the debate. Don't speak over your opponent, be courteous and speak clearly. I did PF for 3 years and coach it to this day, so I am very excited to judge your rounds!

Hello, my name is Joey Ribera (he/him) and I'm a former PF/LD debater (3 years pf/1 year LD).

My Paradigm:

- Speed is fine

- Whatever contentions/argumentation you view relevant to bring up in the round, I will flow + consider in my decision. The only thing I encourage is making the impacts and the weighing factors you'd want me to evaluate them from really clear within the round.

- Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions before round!

I was a first speaker in PF for 4 years in high school in addition to World Schools Debate, so I have a lot of experience listening to all types of arguments and speaking styles.

My judging philosophy is simple…I expect you to make it easy for me to vote for you:

Cases:

Signpost your arguments. If you have several contentions, it is important that you let me know which contention you are on so I can keep track of it in my flow. If you are in a subpoint, please let me know this. With each piece of evidence, tell me the source and year so I know its relevance to the case. Most importantly, TELL ME THE SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACTS OF YOUR EVIDENCE. If you do not tell me why the evidence is important, I cannot weigh it more heavily than other pieces of evidence that has impacts.

Note 1: I am fine with any argument, but please make sure that you tell me why it is important (significance and impact), if not I will think it is an irrational argument that has no merit.

Note 2: ENUNCIATE YOUR WORDS. If you are speaking fast, slow, or anywhere in between, and I cannot understand you, I stop taking notes. If I am nodding my head, I am following your argument, if I am looking at you (or in this day and age at the screen) and not down at my paper, you have done something wrong and it is up to you to fix it.

First Cross:

Do not ask clarifying questions, it give the opponent endless time to restate their case and make it stronger. You should be asking questions that help your partner in their refutation so they have the proper ammunition to deliver a strong hit against the opposing team.

I am fine if you speak over one another, and I will not intervene unless there is a blatant disrespect going on. Please be civil, don't be condescending.

Refutations/Blocks:

Signpost your blocks. You should tell me which contention, which subpoint, and which piece of evidence is being refuted. If you have several blocks for one argument, tell me prior to listing them off, then proceed to tell me which block number you are on so I can keep track of it in my flow. If your team is speaking second, please frontline the refutations provided by the other team. Most importantly, IF YOU DO NOT REFUTE THE ARGUMENT, I CARRY IT THROUGH TO SUMMARY SPEECHES, do not make me do that.

Second Cross:

Again, no clarifying questions. Here you should be asking questions that will help your partner in their summary so they can then proceed to tell me why your team has won the round.

Summary:

This is the speech I pay closest attention to in round, since I was a first speaker I have mounds of experience giving these speeches. In this speech, you should be doing several things: 1. Tell me which arguments still stand on both sides, 2. Weigh the impacts of each remaining argument, 3. Tell me why your team has won this round. Most important, IF YOU DO NOT CARRY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE OR CONTENTIONS THROUGH THIS ROUND I CROSS IT OFF MY FLOW, make sure that everything you want me to judge at the end of the entire round is mentioned in this speech.

Note: If I notice that one team has no more remaining contentions/subpoints/evidence and the other team calls this out, I will cast my ballot in this part of the round. Make sure your summary is good.

Final Cross:

If you are asking a clarifying question you have probably recognized that you have lost the round. Here you should be asking questions about the fragments of evidence and subpoints still standing in the round.

Final Focus:

Here you should be crystalizing the round, putting everything in a nice bow. The goal of your final focus should be for me to be confident in my decision. Normally, I have a clear sense of who won prior to this part of the round. If you have any doubt that I will vote against you prior to this speech, make sure that by the end of it I have to reconsider my thinking.

As someone who did Extemp and Oratory for 3 years, delivery is also important:

Speaker Scores:

This is where presentation matters. On ballots we are asked if wins are "low point wins", don't make me do this. If you have a good argument, you should be presenting it well (especially if you are a first speaker presenting your team's case).

For tiebreaks at tournaments, speaker scores matter, so ensure that your presentation is good so that you are not that single 4-2 team not breaking because of low speaker scores.

Most Important Note for the Round:

If you are in anyway Anti-Semitic, Racist, Homophobic, Sexist/Misogynistic, Islamophobic, or display any other form of hatred, I will drop my pencil, give you AND your partner the LOWEST possible speaker score, YOU WILL LOSE THE ROUND, and will be reported to the tournament director for further punishment.

Debate is supposed to be an inclusive setting for people of all backgrounds (religious, gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, etc...) please don't be the reason someone quits debate.

Hi everyone, I'm Jacob (he/him).

I did public forum for two years, so that is the event I am most familiar with. With that in mind, I will be flowing the round to the best of my ability and I will understand most debate jargon. I am fine with some speed, but clarity is of the utmost importance and if I am unable to follow your arguments due to speed, I will dock speaking points. Finally, please weigh from rebuttal onwards because it makes it much easier to follow what holds and what is dropped, and making value judgments is easier on my end. I will dock 0.5 speaker points if Bradford 13 appears anywhere in your case.

contact info: sawyerjacobg@gmail.com

Looking for good quality cases, facts, and evidence supporting your contentions from both sides. Listen to your opponent’s arguments, being courteous and logical. Focus on the clarity of the debater's speech, the quality of the arguments made, and the ability to defend your positions.

Experience: I debated for around a year, mostly LD but did Public Forum for one tournament.

Just keep the round interesting and I'll give higher speaker points. Be as respectful as possible but what that really means is no personal attacks and such.

You can pretty much run anything, just make it make sense. I vote off of impacts (as most judges do) but you need to show me clearly how your arguments lead to the impacts. Logic is very important. If I don't understand it or if I don't think the links are strong enough, I will not vote on it.

I don't know too much about this topic so don't assume anything. You don't need to over-explain and spend too much time on it, but don't assume I know all the abbreviations or vocab.

Oh, and only spread if you are sure I'll be able to understand it. If I don't understand it, I won't be able to evaluate it. (this is novice though, so I doubt any of you will spread)

Pronoun - they/them/she/her

Student judge - Newport high school

Debated in LD for high school, no other event competing experiences.