Current debater for Mountain Brook. I've done PF for 5 years

Add me to the email chain: allencaroline75@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

Background:

High School Debate experience with Policy and Public Forum.

I will adapt to the style of the debaters and the debate, with a few caveats.

General Notes:

Please add me to the chain if there is one, I wont force you to make one, but it will make the debate a lot smoother.

email: ya.y.c2016@gmail.com (yeah I know it's weird)

I judge mostly based on what's on my flow, so good organization is key to getting my ballot.

Please Signpost, also fully fleshing out an argument before moving on is good.

Although evidence is expected, give me reasoning as to why your position is better than that of your opponents. Debate is about more than just reading cards. When extending cards, please don't just read the author. Extend Warrants not just taglines.

PF:

please give an order before your speech

I prioritize what debaters present and debate in the round over my beliefs about truth in the outside world. I will treat dropped arguments as true arguments.

tech>truth.

However, dropped args arent an instant win, I still need warrants and extensions.

I am a fan of the evidence debate, not enough teams in pf (at least in my limited experience) engage in it.

I will evaluate the round based on who accesses the comparatively more important impact. Make sure you weigh, I work my way backward through substance debate to determine who best accesses what,

I try to minimize judge intervention, Im only here to evaluate the debate. I will base my decision on what is said in the round. However, I will intervene in identifying new args in the Final Focus, or if there is an ethics violation.

I would prefer if you didn't paraphrase evidence, but I won't hold it against you if you do.

I am comfortable with "progressive arguments," and am familiar with K lit

I don't flow cross, but that doesn't mean that its not important. I want to see good cross strategy and well developed questions. Also during cross, I'm fine with a little pressure, but don't be openly hostile, that's a great way to lose my ballot and speaks.

also good luck and remember to have fun

Online Debate:

please try to keep your webcams on, however, I understand that's not always possible. Just let me know in advance.

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Background: I debated PF at Auburn High School. I have a BS in Economics from Auburn University and am working on my MS in Economics at Portland State University. This is my fifth year judging. I'm a flow judge. I judge the round based almost purely off of what is left on the flow after final focus. This means that I value clear voters and good line by line very highly.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. Any points made in crossfire must be brought up in a speech for me to weigh it in the round. If debaters are rude during crossfire it will be reflected in their speaker points.

Evidence: If debaters cannot produce evidence in less than a minute, I assume that they do not have the card. I will ask for cards after the round if I am not clear on the intentions of the author or believe that the card was miscut.

General Info: I am a student at Auburn University studying theatre management. I have competed in PF debate and Congress throughout my high school debate career. Trad>Prog. I flow; however, if you are a clear win on the flow and do not convince me during your speeches, I will not vote for you.

PF: My background is in PF. Novices, I have more grace with; however, please try to stay on the flow. Varsity, you know how Debate works. Space your time well and be persuasive. I will be sad if your cross is dull, but it does not affect if you win or not, aka I do not flow it (because we do not do that).

Speaks: Speed is fine if you are clear; however, if I make faces at you of confusion or your opponents feel like you are spreading, do not be rude. Slow down. Again, I have a background in theatre, so the flow of speech (vocal variety and enunciation) and persuasiveness are vital to me. Speaks will be ranked based on that.

Do not make any drastic comparisons to genocide, slavery, rape, etc., in your case or weighing. Automatic loss, I will stop flowing and will not vote for you. The same goes for homophobic, sexist, racist, etc., comments. I will not vote for you if I hear it, even if you out-debated. There is no room for bigotry in Debate.

Good Luck!

INCLUDE ME ON EMAIL CHAIN

abbybowling58@gmail.com

*if you have any questions about your debate/my decision, please feel free to email me!

I am a varsity member of LD debate and I've done both middle and high school level debate.

I appreciate roadmaps before each speech (except 1AC)

I expect to see framework debate since that is a fundamental part of LD

I am not a fan of spreading, so share your case if you are going to do that. I'm okay with speed, but I need to be able to understand you.

Signposting is very important during rebuttals.

Voters help me weigh the round.

Most importantly, keep the debate clean. At the end of the day, debate is meant to encourage critical thinking and improve real-life skills. Let's do our best and have fun whilst in the round.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. I am more than happy to answer them. Looking forward to seeing you guys do an amazing job!

I am an Americorps service member with less formal debate training.

My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of a public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone and convince them why your side is right. Finding a way to make me care about your side by bringing out your emotions is a plus. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

Hey y'all!

My name is Kashvi. I'm a Varsity LD debater at Hoover High, and this is my fourth year debating.

Here are a couple things to think about for this round:

* I am a completely blank slate. I will make my decision based only on the information that you provide. Even if your opponent says something utterly ridiculous, I am still going to flow it unless you argue against it.

* I'm not a fan of spreading but you won't lose points if I can understand you (add me to the email chain if you spread ~ 07kashvig@gmail.com)

* I don't flow cross-ex, so if you have something you want me to flow, you need to bring it up in one of your cases.

* Be sure to signpost and provide offtime roadmaps. This is not something that you will lose points for, but it will help me follow your cases much better.

* Try to fill as much of your speech time as possible. Avoid ending your speech without arguing all of your opponents points.

* Provide voters. Give me reasons to side with you.

The main thing that I want you guys to remember is to TRY YOUR BEST AND ALWAYS HAVE FUN!!

Experience:

Mountain Brook High School Debate (2003-2007)

Mountain Brook Lincoln/Douglass & Policy Debater (2003-2006)

Mountain Brook Public Forum Debater (2006-2007)

As a judge, I want to see debaters that:

Collapse: No one wants to evaluate 100 different arguments at the end of the round. In your closing, pick the arguments that carry the most weight and tell me why you won them.

Weigh Arguments: Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. Do this early, and do this often.

Speak Clearly: I don't have a hard limit on speed, but this isn't Policy. If I can't follow, I will say the word "clear" to help you get to where I can flow your round properly. I will not deduct points for calling out "clear," but if I can't follow your argument that can obviously have an impact on the ballot.

Signpost: Before time starts, give us an idea of where you'll be going during your argument. It doesn't have to be all-encompassing or set in stone, but a general idea is very helpful.

Show Respect: Be respectful, not only to me but to your opponent as well. This begins before the first argument goes out, we're here to develop and enjoy ourselves- don't ruin it by being hateful.

Miscellaneous:

Dates: Dates matter with evidence. The first time you use a piece of evidence, drop the date in there for everyone's benefit. If your opponent uses a piece of evidence and doesn't say the date, don't be afraid to ask for it.

Prepare: Be prepared and ready to go. Use the bathroom, preflow, and do whatever else you need to before I get there!

CX: I'm willing to go a little over time in order to allow for an answer. For example: If Aff asks Neg a question with 3 seconds left, I'll allow Neg to give an answer before we call it.

Kritik/Counterplan/Theory: Please do it well if you are going to run it. It is always uncomfortable when someone runs a shell argument that they don't really understand and then falls apart halfway through!

If you need me to clarify any of these paradigms and preferences, or you have a question that I have not addressed, please ask; I want you to know what to expect and feel comfortable going into the round!

Any Questions, feel free to email me- Hayslip@gmail.com

I debated varsity PF for Auburn for two years. I’m currently a senior at Auburn University studying Industrial Design.

I prefer clear, cogent, and coherent argument. If a point is valid, give logical and empirical argument to support it. Don’t spread.

I value the framework and the flow, so if you bring up a point in crossfire (which I don’t flow) bring it up again in a speech. Be nice.

Big Evidence. If you are arguing something you need evidence to back it up

For the online do not speak fast since it will be hard to hear some things

If it is in person I can handle speed but just rember to enunciate your words

I do not care for crossfires. However, if something does happen in the crossfire bring it up in your next speech

If evidence is misread or miscut then I will not flow it

Please signpost so I know where you are going during your speech

If you have anymore questions just ask before the round

I am a sophomore in college, and I have done PF for 4 years. I know the format well and rules too.

Please try to avoid spreading, and do make sure you signpost. It makes my job easier. I like hearing impacts and a decent framework battle. If there is no DECENT framework battle, don't try to argue it.

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

I would prefer that the participants start an email chain and include me @ teacherpack@gmail.com

I am the Director of Analytics at McLeod Software. Previously, I was a high school mathematics teacher (retired after 25 years) and began the debate team at several of the schools I taught at. My daughter is a senior currently debating in Varsity PF and she asked me to become a judge. I am well-informed about the structure and rules of PF. Make sure you speak at a speed where I can follow your contentions. If I don't understand what you are saying, I will not flow your contentions which could lead to deducted speaker points. As such, spreading will not be tolerated as per the NSDA guidelines for PF. If you are a spreader, I encourage you to debate in either Policy or Lincoln Douglas. I have prior knowledge about the current topic, and I value truth>tech - I call cards. All debaters should be respectful and courteous with opposing teams. Please don't consider it prep time while your opponent is delivering their speeches. I flow the Cross-ex. and it is used in voting and in awarding speaker points.

Judging experience:

Samford University debate series
Hoover Bucs Tournament 2021
Jesuit Dallas Debate Invitational
Skyhawk Smackdown

I’m a junior at Altamont School in Birmingham, Alabama who has debated PF for 3 years. I consider myself a tech judge and I pretty much adapt to the style of the debaters but I have a few notes/preferences (Public Forum specific).

_________________________

- Tech > truth. Dropped arguments are true arguments and evidence is a necessity.

- I'm ok with speed but not spreading.

- Warning: I am not really comfortable or familiar with theory/really progressive arguments and have trouble voting for them.

- Love off-time roadmaps and signposting.

- Second rebuttal should at least respond to turns put on their case.

- I expect weighing from summary on.

- I will not vote on an argument if it is not in final focus and summary.

- There shouldn't be any new unresponsive arguments from 2nd summary onward as it puts an unfair burden on your opponents to respond.

- Warrant your evidence or conflicting evidence will be a wash.

- i swear to god do not flow through ink

- If you want me to call for a card because you think your opponents are misrepresenting it, tell me to do so and I will. If you can't pull up a card in 2 mins, I'm not gonna evaluate it in the round.

_________________________

Background: I am a varsity member of PF debate, and I've also had experience with middle and high school debate.

Here are some of the things I need to see in the round:

- Please be respectful to your opponents throughout the round. Points will be deducted for any rude/unprofessional behavior.

- Speak clearly. If I cannot understand you, I will not be able to flow it.

- Impacts are very important! Tell me why your argument matters and don't just only give me random cards.

-Weighing your impacts in summary and final focus is a must!

-Tell me what arguments should be extended in summary/final focus

-Unless you state it, do not assume I will know when your opponents are wrong about something.

-I will not flow cross ex. If something important is said, you need to tell me in one of your speeches.

-I can time speeches if needed, but I would prefer if you would also time yourself as well.

-Signposting is very much appreciated.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me! I hope you all have a wonderful time debating!

Background: Hi y'all. I'm Shreya Ramamurthy, I'm a senior at Hoover High. I've been doing PF debate for 4 years now and I have qualified for and attended the National Speech and Debate Tournament at Kentucky.

Some key things:

- Presentation matters. Don't be monotone and try to know your facts well enough that you can make eye contact

- I don't mind speed as long as it is clear. If it is not clear or I can't hear you, I won't flow it.

- Professionalism is key. Don't be rude, it can cost you many points and maybe even the round.

Speech Preferences:

- Signpost + give off time road maps. Tell me what you're responding to. If I don't know what argument you are refuting or talking about, I can't flow it.

- Weighing is super important. Weighing needs to be comparative (don’t just tell me why your impacts are important, tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s impacts). Weighing in summary is a must.

- I don't flow crossfire, so if you think that I should flow the things mentioned in crossfire, make sure you include it during your speeches. Ex. "During crossfire, my opponents failed to..." or something like to that.

- I'm not too strict on time but don't exceed your time by like 30 seconds. You can just finish up what you were saying. Same thing for cross.

- State the cite for every piece of evidence. For example: "Smith 20 states that ........"

- Make sure to tell me what to flow in your speeches. For example: "extend this argument because blah blah" or "disregard their arguments because ...." or "drop this evidence because ....."

Feel free to ask me any questions at 1964923220@hcs-students.net

pls don't add me to any email chains.

tech>truth: debate is a game

the best way to my ballot is to weigh. weighing is inherently comparative, warrant your weighing and compare impacts/links to each other

run whatever you want; but the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you will have to explain it to me

any speed is good, just be clear

don't give me a soliloquy for your off-time roadmap

for the love of god, give me warrants

please signpost; if I look lost, I probably am

i don’t pay attention to cross; if something important happens, then bring it up in your following speech

do not extend the entire flow

frontline responses

defense is sticky

i vote neg on presumption

if you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary

if we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. some speed is okay, but i really value clarity when online

add me to the email chain: crhoades2002@gmail.com

*This paradigm is tentative

Auburn High School 2020

I am an experienced 3-year PF Debater and have a working understanding of both traditional and progressive Lincoln Douglas debate, but there are more stipulations if I ever have to judge an LD Round.

Overall Notes:

Speaker Points:

30–29: You did an amazing job, know your debate jargon, know what you’re doing, and are probably going to break. If you get anything in this range, give yourself a pat on the back.

29-28: Pretty good speaking overall, likely to break, only missed a few things here and there or maybe said 1-2 questionable things throughout the entire round. Overall, good job.

28-27: We’re getting into the realm of the averages here. Generally good speaking, could use some more practice on a couple points and the frequency of questionable things is starting to get higher, or maybe you just don’t speak English well. Don’t be upset or angry if you fall into this range, you’re doing okay. You’ll probably do good against some better teams at a tournament.

27-26: Starting to get into the realms of abuse, raising of voices, attacking your opponent, etc. This stuff isn’t common, but it is present in your speech. You’re disrupting the sanctity of a debate round if it is any worse than 1 or 2 incidents. You will be warned after the round if it gets to the lower end of the 26 scale.

26-25: Being blatantly racist, sexist, encouraging violence against a certain group, etc. I will not tolerate any of this in a round, especially since I have a sister, a gay twin brother, and we are all biracial. You are starting to personally offend me, much less your opponents, if you start getting into this scale. If you want an example of what I mean, one of my team mates was in a round where there opponents said “Women should just stay in abusive relationships with their boyfriends. Fixing inflation will inevitably solve for the abuse anyways so it doesn’t matter if they stay in those relationships.” Let’s just say that after the round, your coach and the tournament staff will find out about you getting a 25 long before you do. Please keep the debate civil and professional. I don’t wanna have to go make a complaint because someone I judged was just being an unprofessional, horrible person in round.

Since I am primarily a PF person, I’ll do that paradigm first. LD Debaters can skip this.

PF Paradigm:

General notes:

* I adore a good clash between cases, so if a clash is natural emphasize it.

* I will time your speeches and your prep-time myself, but feel free to keep it yourself too.

* Let’s try to keep the debate fast and on schedule.

* No spreading please. This is supposed to be the common man’s Debate, not some up-tempo philosophical chest beating match like your average LD round.

For NC/AC: Trad PF is best PF. Please don’t try to turn PF into Policy-lite, because it isn’t. Also, if an alternative to the resolution is in your case, it is a counter-plan lite and I will not weigh it on the flow. Counter-plans don’t exist in PF, let’s try to keep it that way. Beyond that, if you are running Util/CBA please try and stay consistent with that framework when you weigh. I want actual issues to vote off, not vote based off of technicalities on the flow. 90% of PF Rounds go off of these two frameworks, so I expect experienced debaters to know how to do Util weighing. Any other framework, like Structural Violence, needs to be explained and stuck to for the whole round unless you want to default to your opponents framework or Util/CBA.

For Rebuttals: I used to be a second speaker, so I know what they need to do and how to do that well. Firstly, please give an off-time roadmap for your opponents and me. After that, please signpost within your speech. Lastly and perhaps the most important thing for me is doing good line-by-line and sign-posing on your opponents case.

Firstly, I am absolutely fine with cross-application of your case but there are some stipulations.

-1. You can only use arguments that have not been responded to in your case. If you cross-apply cards that have blocks on them, I expect those blocks to be answered by you or the first speaker otherwise the cross-applications are invalid.

-2. I expect the cross-applications to not be the only evidence used in a refutation. Bringing up logical examples and proper blocks is expected.

-3. The cross-application has to be logical and well explained.

Next, I am completely fine with logical arguments but they don’t hold nearly as much weight as actual blocks in my book. Also, everything you do in rebuttal needs to have some kind of warrant behind it to be held high by me in round.

Dependent on topic, you may also want to start weighing as early as the rebuttal. I expect the debaters to know if they should be doing this.

For Summary:

Firstly, no new arguments from here on out. New cards are okay if you’re front-lining but new arguments won’t even get put on the flow.

If you speak first, answer the rebuttals on your case and don’t go straight to weighing. If you go straight to weighing with refutations still on your entire case, you have no offense and won’t be winning this round.

By this point in the round, I expect you to start collapsing the debate down into key issues. Far to often, PF Debaters want to hold on to everything they can. They try and drag everything back to keep as much offense as possible, which seems good on paper but as a judge, this makes the round far to broad in my opinion. It is absolutely fine to let somethings drop off into the aether of the round and only drag across the things you know you can win on. Don’t fall into the trap of hoarding all the offense you can, because even with experienced judges that can end poorly as the round gets muddled and murky.

Please for the love of Uncle Sam, try to do impact calculus. This makes my life so much easier when i know what your team is winning on and why. Summary is the hardest speech of the round, but we’re well past the dark days of the 2 minute summary so I expect everything to be of a higher level now. Make your second speakers job easy in the Final Focus... speaking of

For Final Focus:

Again, no new arguments. Also, no new cards. I am not a lay judge, so don’t try and pull one on me because it won’t be happening.

By this point, the round should be so condensed you’re only doing three things: Answering summaries and final focuses, extending what you have left, voters and weighing. This is a very cut and dry speech. Beyond adhering to general PF rules, I don’t have anything specific to say here beyond make it good because this is psychologically an important speech in the round.

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

1) SPREADING: I can't flow what I don't hear. Also, I promise you that you don't need to be spreading. Just cut down your case a bit and give yourself a chance to coherently present meaningful arguments.

2) Progressive/theory: If effectively presented, I can vote on progressive arguments, but don't expect me to vote for it just because you're running it.
3) Cards are great but I'm not going to buy an argument without links just because someone credible said it. Explain why that great card is so great.

4) Tech over truth: I only judge what is said in the round, regardless of my own knowledge/opinions. If something that your opponents say is obviously false, it is your job to call it out.

5) EXTEND! The arguments that I weigh are the arguments that are extended every speech

6) Always practice good evidence ethics. If evidence is egregiously misrepresented on purpose, I will dock speaks and may vote you down.

7) Be respectful during cx. Ask a question and let your opponents go; you don't need 23 follow-ups

8) For email chains or questions, feel free to contact me at midhuns7573@gmail.com

9) I'll always disclose post-round (unless told not to) and can give you as much feedback as you'd like! Good luck!

p.s.

Give me song recs to acquire my everlasting love

Hello!

I’m a student at UAB studying nursing, but in high school I was a varsity PF debater! The most important thing to me is clarity during the round. If you are speaking too fast and I can’t understand what you are saying, I will not be able to flow it and it may cost you the round. Also, make sure to be respectful to your opponents. I will not tolerate any racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. comments. It will cause you to automatically lose. I don’t flow cross so if your opponents bring up something you want to use, you must bring it up in a speech. Make sure to weigh the round and that you flow across your cards throughout the round. Please do not bring up new evidence in your last speech since that is unfair to your opponents.

Concerning speaker points- speak clearly and annunciate well. Don’t let your words run together when you are trying to talk fast. I also value when a person uses their whole time.

Good luck + I look forward to watching y’all debate! :)

Freshman at UPenn, did PF for four years for Altamont School in Birmingham, AL and qualled to Nats and GTOC 2x. I consider myself a tech judge and I pretty much adapt to the style of the debaters but I have a few notes/preferences (Public Forum specific).

_________________________

GENERAL

- Add me to the email chain, email at bottom.

- Assume I have little to no topic knowledge.

- Tech > truth. Dropped arguments are true arguments and evidence is a necessity.

- Just don't be offensive/abusive it's not that hard. Debate should be about inclusivity. If you are offensive/abusive I will dock you speaks and maybe drop you depending on how bad you are.

- Novice Debaters: Please just use your whole speech time, it will always help you more than hurt you and I'll give you higher speaks.

- Talk however fast you want, I can understand speed but if you are going to spread, email me and your opponents a speech doc.

- Warning: I am not really familiar with theory/really progressive arguments but if you explain/warrant it well with evidence I'm open to it.

- If you want me to call for a card because you think your opponents are misrepresenting it, tell me to do so and I will.

SPECIFIC SPEECH STUFF

- Second rebuttal should at least respond to turns put on their case.

- Weigh from summary on, if not rebuttal.

- I will not vote on an argument if it is not in final focus and summary.

- No new unresponsive arguments from 2nd summary onward.

- I don't flow cross but it is binding. If something important is mentioned, bring it up in a speech.

_________________________

If you have any questions ask me before or after round or email me at wvsdebate@gmail.com Also I'm pretty much always gonna disclose, if you don't agree with my decision, ask me I'll be happy to explain.

Experience

Mountain Brook High School Speech and Debate Coach (2018 - Present)

Wheaton North High School Speech (2003-2007)

Wheaton North Public Forum Debater (2006)

As a judge, I want to see debaters that are:

Focused and Organized: The more thoughtful you are about how you present your contentions initially, the easier it for me to judge and for your opponents to interact with your case. Evidence should be succinct and questions during cross should be thoughtful and targeted. A PF round goes incredibly quickly, and it's important that you use each second to your advantage. In particular I appreciate when debaters weigh and discuss impact throughout the round. By the end I want to be sold on why your contentions are stronger and your impacts are more significant. Remember that as I judge I may not have seen all of the evidence that you have, and in Public Forum it is your job to talk to me as if I know nothing about the topic, even if I do.

Prepared: Nothing hurts the quality of a debate more than debaters who do not fully understand the resolution or their opponents’ claims. Good clash can only be built through understanding all facets of the resolution and the evidence available. That being said, citing a piece of evidence is never a substitution for a strong warrant. If you cannot explain your evidence and connect it logically to your argument, then I am less likely to consider it when judging. I do not like calling for evidence. It usually means that you have stopped debating the topic and started debating cards that I have not read.

Professional: Professionalism will not lose you a round with me, but it will absolutely impact the speaker points I award. Being confident and convincing me that you have won your debate is expected. Being rude, disrespectful, or condescending to the judge, your opponents, or your partner is never acceptable. Debate is an enormous undertaking, and every person’s time and commitment should be respected. It is also incredibly difficult to know what your opponents are saying if you do not give them their time to talk, or when you are overly focused on your own case.

I am a college student at Auburn University that has previously debated Public forum in high school. I only have a few preferences, nothing too major but I would greatly appreciate it if you followed it in round.

1) speed is good but spreading is a no go, if I can't understand what you're saying because you're going too fast then I won't flow it [ sorry :( ]

2) please be respectful to your opponents during the round (especially during crossfire I know it can be hard sometimes :/ but still..) failure to be respectful will result in very low speaks

3) I would prefer if each case had a framework (i do enjoy a good framework debate/ voter)

4) please present voters whether it be in summary or final focus (it doesn't matter to me when you do it just that you present voters :))

5) I prefer clear and concise cards, dates, contentions, and impacts (i tend to vote on framework and magnitude in each round)

I will disclose if both teams want me to. I will provide critiques if needed. I WILL ALSO ASK FOR CARDS IF SOMETHING SEEMS SKETCH. I WILL CALL YOU OUT AND I WILL WANT TO SEE PROOF...so be prepared :)

4 yrs competing

Speed fine but speak clearly. Add me to email chain: aryuga2023@gmail.com

Signpost pls tell me order of speech

I don't flow cross but you can bring up something that happened (although even then ppl exxagerate what happens in cross). Don't go way over cross time.

Weighing has to be in summary for it to be in final.

Defense is not sticky, u have to extend all pieces of defense through summary if u want me to evaluate it.

If you run out of time for a speech, I'll let you finish your sentence, won't flow anything after that.

don't steal prep

27.5 speaks means you did mid, I'll plus/minus depending on each person

Don't be rude.

On theory and k's: I barely understand either so run at your own risk. I don't think either should be a part of PF. Ik not disclosing/paraphrasing evidence is unfair but I will adjust accordingly for evidence ethics violations (not evaluating it + low speaks). Also i just don't buy disclo.

Ask for more prefs in round but this is basically all.

Have fun y'all db8 is stressful AF don't beat yourself up on a loss ON JA

Hello I'm Rati Venkatesan. I am a part of the Hoover Speech and Debate team and I am a part of PF. I am really excited to see and listen to new debaters in person :)

Time yourself

Cases: speed ok, don't spread. Clearly state the contention names and impacts

Rebuttal: Signpost (tell me where in the speech you are)

Summary: do an offtime roadmap; weigh impacts; stay organized and concise so I know what to vote off of

FF: weigh impacts!!!

If you don't say something in summary, don't mention it in final focus; I won't flow it. I don't like any new info in second summary.

I won't flow crossfire so if you want me to flow something said there then say it during one of your speech

If you are mean I am giving the other team the win automatically.

Get Real

I am currently a varsity PF debater at Altamont and have been doing PF for 5 years.

-pls give an off time roadmap, it makes it easier on me

- PLEASE SIGNPOST im begging you

-make sure all your speeches (except for constructive) actually interact with the other team and what they’re saying

-no new args second summary onward bc thats mean to the other team

-second rebuttal should answer first rebuttal

-everything in final focus should have been said in summary

-dont be rude to your opponents during cross please

-i dont listen during cross but if you want me to weigh something from it, bring it up in a speech

-i'm okay with speed (speed isn't necessarily good) but if you spread pls send me and your opponents a speech doc

-add me to evidence link chains (imanzuberi04@gmail.com)

-i am not good with progressive args at all and wont vote on them

-start collapsing as soon as second rebuttal if you can

-weigh. weigh. weigh. weigh. tell me why you are winning the round

-i'll disclose unless im told i am not allowed to and try to give advice if yall want it

harry styles reference will give you +1 speaker pt 

credit to wesley sudarshan for like half this paradigm

if you have any other questions dont hesitate to ask and pls have fun this is prob your first tournament ever