Do not speak very fast as I will miss half of what you say.

It would be nice if you explained complex debater lingo to me.

Please time yourself and time your opponents.

I have done Public Forum Debate for 4 years and am familiar with the format. I will primarily be judging the round based on the technical aspects, focusing on what pieces of offense are left by the end of the round by the teams and then weighing these arguments based on a framework to determine my vote. Narratives and rhetoric will affect the frameworks I choose to adopt in my judgment of the round. I will not consider new arguments and evidence developed during and after 2nd summary unless they are clearly interacting with previous statements made.

Traditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed or negated through strong, sound, and logical arguments.

Please enunciate clearly. While spreading can be advantageous in your rebuttals, please do not forsake the quality of your arguments for speed, especially during your construct.

I value respect so please be mannerly in your conduct toward judge and fellow opponent.

I have judged at local and national tournaments.

Debated for two years in Public Forum at my previous high school. I'm currently a freshman at Hunter College, where I compete in moot court and mock trial.

I'm probably tech > truth, meaning I'm not going to vote on unwarranted and poorly contextualized arguments.

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary (exception is that defense is sticky). I know some judges are ok with new weighing in final, but I'm personally not a fan of it.

Weighing arguments is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of link, clarity of impact, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I want to see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Background: Judging online from Indonesia GMT+7 (12 hours ahead of EST/CDT). I judged several varsity level British/Asian/Australs parliamentary debating tournaments around Southeast Asia from 2016 till 2021. As of Nov 2023, I judged a total of 13 Public Forum, 1 Lincoln-Douglas, and 1 WSDC competitions in the U.S. circuit.

Technicalities: Some people may put a heavy emphasis on the presence of evidence and the presentation of examples, but for me, warrant: coherent logical explanation and step-by-step analysis of your argument is more valuable. Spewing out too many facts and trivia before you explain your assertions confuses me. Use those data to back up your arguments, not to lengthen your speech. Also, don't forget to connect the extensions. Do put elaborations on why any impact you give is significant and unique to your side.

Strategy: Don't ever forget to weigh in your arguments against your opponent's. I also expect the two-worlds scenario when you're painting your case. Rather than saying "To give you an off-time roadmap..." in the beginning, better if you do signpost as you go because it will surely help me do the flow during the speech. I love the "even ifs" and the clear-cut comparison between your model and your rival's model.

Manner: No spreading. Please speak clearly and don't rap out your speech. You may turn off cameras if you (or I happen to) experience lags or internet problems. Please time your own speech and when you start, just speak. There's no need to say "time starts now/on my first word" because some scientists argued that time began shortly after The Big Bang.

Correspondence: albert-yang@mail.com. Yes, without the G.

I am a parent PF judge, and a practicing attorney with more than 25 years of experience.

I believe a sound debate is about a fair, intelligible and intelligent dialogue. Speed reading off a computer screen or spreading is incompatible with such a process. Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Do not resort to speech docs. Make your case orally.

I flow arguments and strictly rely on my flowsheet. While I do not take note of points made/unmade in crossfire, I pay careful attention to astute questions and answers. Please bring up crossfire points that you would like me to flow in a subsequent speech. I am persuaded by well-structured, logical and linked arguments that are honestly supported by key pieces of evidence.

In addition to making your case, you must meaningfully engage with your opponents' case. The team advancing a contention must rejoin the issue and tell me why the opposing team's rebuttal/counter/block does not work.

In crossfire, please avoid questions with long preambles.

While, for the most part, I don't get into the weeds with cards and evidence, I may on occasion call for a piece. Teams should feel free to assail each other's evidence during the debate.

Please do not use debate jargon.

I do not like theory and K's. Hew to the topic of the day.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause.

Enthusiasm for, intensity, and passion regarding the proposition you are espousing is welcome. Discourtesy or aggression against your opponents is not.

Tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in crossfire is always delightful.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. Further, the final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (akin to writing my RFD for me - pros of your case and cons of your opponent's.) Lastly, all arguments and evidence that are in the final focus must have been in the summary and no new arguments in the summary speech - it is a matter of fairness.

Happy debating!

I have 9 years experience in coaching and judging various forms of debate and very much enjoy the opportunity to judge.

For Policy and Public Forum, I judge as a policy maker and not truly on a line by line (but will evaluate all arguments in the context of a policy making decision). Please analyze the opponents case/points and prove why their opponent's case is either without foundation or weak and the policy position should not be adopted.

Speed is an issue if the speaker is unintelligible. Speaker points will reflect that problem, additionally, if I don't understand, I can't flow, and if it is not on my flow, I cannot evaluate. Clarity is of utmost importance. Teams should properly provide clear "taglines" for their arguments in order for me to follow (I will not accept flash drives).

Debater professionalism and courtesy are appreciated.

A competitor will be awarded the ballot if their argument effectively meets the burden of proof/ or significantly disproves their opponents. Speakers should use clear and concise language in defining their resolution terminology and are expected to use credible sources to exemplify their case. Speakers should also strive to provide a framework and structer to their argument.

Hello! I mostly have a British parliamentary background, but have also debated a bit in the worlds schools format (third speeches). Here are just some tips/ things that I am looking for.

Harvard HST (Lincoln - Douglas): Read all of the below under world schools, but no marks for rhetoric. You may speak relatively fast, but don't spread. If you have "evidence" but don't also provide warrants, that means nothing to me. Don't impact outrageously.

Harvard World Schools Tournament:

1. The team that wins is the team that wins the most important clashes in the debate. Debate is all about clashes

2. Teams going for the same impact, with different but unrefuted warrants is (in most cases) not a great idea. Think about it this way, if you say that you get X, and so do the Opp, I have to judge the shift in the world caused by that clash as the difference between the two, instead of just crediting the entirety of the benefits to one team

3. I think that strong rhetoric can heavily impact the weight placed on certain impacts, but you can never win a clash, when the warrants are stronger on the other side, as a result of good rhetoric.

4. Speak slow, or I will not be able to flow (and you'll probably lose style points too)

5. The more unintuitive your argument is to the average reasonable voter, the higher your burden of proof in relation to the claim is!

6. Opp should provide independent reasons to not vote for their side. Most rebuttal, unless you are able to flip the impact to your side is purely mitigatory. This is not enough to count as a positive contribution.

6. Have fun! Statistically 50% of teams will lose the round, but if you enjoyed it/ learnt something, you're a winner 100% of the time!

kenan.s.anderson@gmail.com

UPDATE for Minneapple 2021:

I haven't judged Varsity LD since... I don't even know when. So slow down A LOT and anything invented in the last 1.5 years I probably won't know about.

I have a strong natural inclination to consequentialism. If your framework is not consequentialist, especially if it's a critical ROB or ROJ, you need to explain VERY DIRECTLY and VERY BLUNTLY how it filters offense. Otherwise, I'll probably not understand and evaluate the round differently than you would like.

I debated on the circuit for four years. In general, I think debate would be better if it was slightly slower, much more topic-focused, more accessible to lay folks, and had way way way less theory. I'm saddened by the number of rounds that are not resolved by whether the core issue of the topic is good/bad. You should win because you have good arguments, not because you tricked your opponent in some technical game of extensions and cross applications. Disclosure is probably good. Needlessly specific disclosure shells are probably not.

A Note On Speaker Points: Evaluating some sort of "subjective" skill in a single debate is hard. Instead, I use speaker points to reward what I consider good, educational, and persuasive models of debate. This means your speaks will be low if you try and win on frivolous theory or short "X is an independent voting issue" and you'll get great speaks for smart affirmative cases or well thought-out negative strategies. Bonus points for not reading the same plan/DA/K/ etc as everyone else on the topic.

Bonus data because I'm a nerd - looking at varsity rounds only I vote neg 52% of the time (a pretty minor bias given the sample size). Feel free to use this to answer bad (NEG SIDE BIAS JUSTIFIES XXXXX) arguments. Also in out rounds I squirrel 20% of the time. If you're interested in stats for your or a judge you know lmk. I have a python script that does it really fast.

I'm a former World Schools debater for Team Canada, and currently an APDA and BP debater.

Main things to keep in mind:

1) I like warrants. From Inko Bovenzi's paradigm: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence" I like this approach for two reasons: a) Evidence on its own is rarely capable of proving an argument. Debate topics are contentious issues with evidence in favor and against — maybe the evidence in favor is stronger in certain contexts and weaker in others. b) In the time constraints of a debate round, evaluating the strength of warrants is a fairer and more achievable objective than evaluating the strength of evidence. The former, done well, requires me to listen to and assess your logic. The latter requires me to read entire studies, evaluate the soundness of their methods, in many cases distinguish between causation and correlation, and ensure that the link between that evidence and your argument is sound.

2)Weigh arguments. Most rounds can be won on weighing. But weighing needs to be good. Saying "only magnitude matters, probability does not" is not good weighing. I guess in some limited cases, that will win you the round. But I can't think of any cases where it would give you good speaker scores. Any evaluation of a utilitarian outcome is necessarily a combination of probability and impact. You can argue that an impact is so great that we should prioritize it despite the low probability, but that is far from saying "only magnitude matters because we can't assess probability" or some line of reasoning like that.

3) Theory: I really don't like theory arguments, and I have no experience making or evaluating them. I will listen to theory arguments, but I won't love them.

4) Speed: Don't do anything outrageously fast. I will not penalize you for going fast. But you run the risk of underanalyzing certain claims or not communicating them clearly enough for them to be round-winning.

5) Calling evidence: I generally won't call evidence, except in some cases if you ask me to. But in general, try not to do that unless necessary. I also have a good sense of when teams are lying about or exaggerating evidence. So do not do that.

6) Be respectful to your opponents.

7) HAVE FUN!

Hi there! My name is Andrew, and I'm a current college senior. While in high school, I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for Regis, but I haven't continued with debate since then (besides judging to help out my school when needed).

When I debated, my partner and I were considered staunchly "traditional": We argued the resolution as it was written, spoke slowly, and engaged with our opponents' arguments directly. That's definitely the style of debate I prefer — that said, I understand that that's not necessarily the trajectory of the activity these days, and my experience in LD means I'll probably understand whatever you throw my direction. If you have any more specific questions, just ask me before the round!

I'm a flow judge and have debated 4 years of PF at Trinity School. Broke to dubs at TOC '21.

Defense is not sticky - if you want defense to flow through, you need to extend it in every speech. That said, if first summary extends defense that wasn't frontlined in second rebuttal, second summary is too late to bring up a new frontline.

Screaming "Smith 18" is not an extension. If you want me to vote on something, you need to extend the warranting as well as the evidence.

I don't flow cross - if something important is said during cross, make sure to bring it up in a later speech.

Talk as fast as you want as long as you're clear (but I find that when people talk fast, their warranting suffers; I will not vote off blippy warranting).

No theory unless you actually, genuinely care about the issue (see TOC finals 2021 for a good example).

Bonus points for any jokes made during speeches :)

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the arguments have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude! Please respect your opponents.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! Speak fast, but don't zoom through your speech! Calm down and speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims. Role fulfillment is a must-do!

Good luck!

I'm a parent judge in my third year of judging debate. Please do not spread or use excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly, focusing on clarity and quality of argument over quantity. Keep your delivery organized and oriented toward a first-time listener of the topic.

Support assertions with evidence, providing context or relevance as necessary. Beyond making your case, please respond directly to your opponent's arguments. Highlight areas of contrast and points you believe to be particularly favorable to your cause. Passionate engagement is fine, but please take care to be civil and respectful.

Present a clear summation of key points made (and not made by your opponents), and why your side should prevail.

Finally, I'm not interested in Theory arguments.

I look forward to hearing you.

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

I am a lay parent judge. Please be organized in your presentation -- I like solid arguments articulated clearly. Please don't talk too fast, mumble, speak softly, or do anything that would make it harder for me to follow -- give me a clear way to vote for you. I may ask for cards at the end.

Be civil: if you use foul language, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

Be considerate: If you ask a question in crossfire, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

I look forward to hearing all of your presentations -- have fun!

I am a cardiologist in the Washington, DC area and I have no background in debate. I have been a parent judge for 5 years, so I do know some of the basic rules.

Please speak clearly and be respectful with asking and answering questions.

Keep your arguments generally socially acceptable.

I prefer probable arguments as opposed to farfetched arguments.I want to hear a good debate. Avoid repeating what others have said. Make sure you address previous speakers and expound on arguments.

At the end of the session, I have to rank you and that is difficult, so please talk to me when I am finished and not prior to that.

BACKGROUND: I am a junior at Harvard College who competed for Regis High School with moderate success (some bids, a lot of elims) in PF for four years on the National Circuit.

PARADIGM: Be kind, be honest, be clear, tell me a story that makes sense, and engage specifically with your opponents' arguments. Try not to do anything that I would likely view as excessively progressive, technical, or inaccessible given that my understanding of debate remains normed to what this activity looked like when I was introduced to it roughly 5 years ago. Don't make ridiculous arguments or misrepresent evidence. I will almost certainly not vote for progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc.).

Most of the time, the team that does the smartest things analytically (great comparative weighing! response grouping! weighed resolution of clash!) wins. If you have to speak super fast, you're probably missing the point. I don't enjoy speed, but I can certainly flow it, short of spreading.

I debated in high school LD and PF and was a college Parli debater, so I have a good amount of experience. I was a quarter finalist in CA for LD and a TCFL State Qualifier in LD (if that matters).

LD is first and foremost a value debate. Be sure to keep that in mind.

- Be cordial to each other. There is no reason to be rude to your fellow competitors. For zoom competitors, that means no giggling or whispering when your mics are off. Treat it just like a normal round.

- Time yourselves and each other, please.

- I am fine with speed, but I do not like spreading. I can keep up but I think that it's poor practice and your speaks will be reduced.

- Sign posting is extremely important to me. Always tell me what contention you are talking about or responding to.

- It’s extremely important that you show a good understanding of the topic and you are not simply throwing out arguments that you think fit and reiterating them.

- While I am more of a traditional judge, I am open to progressive debate (K, T, Theory, ect.) but give substantial explanation.

- I love clash. Be sure to actually respond to your opponents arguments rather than just say they don't matter.

- Apologies for any weird faces, I am processing and writing notes!

For speech competitors:

- Do your thing, I have no strong preferences!

Hi, I'm Alisha!! (she/her)

Email me before the round: abhattsmith23@concordcarlisle.org for any questions or concerns on my paradigm or anything I can do to make the round more comfortable/safe.

Overall (everyone must do this)

• Be nice to your partner and opponents. (no racism homophobia etc)

• You will be dropped if I see this happening.

• Ask your opponents before running progressive arguments (theory, k’s, etc) (unless it's trigger/content warnings then go for it)

• If you think there should be a content warning, there should be one with an anonymous opt-out form for everybody in the round.

If you are a novice:

• You rock!

• Debate can seem daunting at first. Just remember we are all here to learn from one another so please don’t be stressed and try to have some fun :)))

• If at any point during the round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, ask me.

• Weighing the easiest way you can win my ballot. Make sure, however, you are doing this comparatively.

• I don’t vote off of your crossfires. That doesn’t mean I’m not paying attention. If you have something to say about a crossfire, make sure you are bringing it up in a later speech so it goes on my flow.

• Collapse! I (and many other judges) do not evaluate rounds by counting how many things you bring up about the round. It simply is not a good use of your time. Pick your strongest arguments and extend the warrant and impact.

Speech:

I am a relatively inexperienced speech judge but have plenty of experience in forensics. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Public Forum:

Flow judge.

Stating something that contradicts what your opponents have said isn't debating; it's disagreeing. AKA implicate your responses and don't repeatedly extend through ink.

I look for the path of least resistance when I'm deciding a round.

If you misrepresent evidence, I will drop you.

Theory: Generally, I don't think theory belongs in PF debate. I think PF is unique in the sense that accessibility is an integral part of the activity and in my opinion the speed at which debaters often have to speak and the evidence cited in theory shells are simply not accessible to the public at large. That being said, I understand the value of theory with respect to protecting competitors from abuses in round and out of respect for all debaters and arguments alike I will listen and flow theory and evaluate it in the round. I've even voted for a team who ran it once. All I'll say is the only thing worse than running theory is doing it badly. If you don't know what you're doing and you don't actually have a deep understanding of the theory that you're running and how it operates within a debate round, I wouldn't recommend that you run it in front of me. Lastly, if you're going to run theory you should know that I really value upholding the standard that you run in and out of rounds and across all topics.

Experience:

Debated in PF during all four years of HS for Bronx Science, dabbled in Policy for a year at Emory. Coached for 3+ years. Currently a law student at Emory.

Judged various forms of debate since 2013.

Please add me the to email chain: bittencourtjulia25@gmail.com

Please be on time for check-in.

Email: Gracenicoleb@gmail.com

She/her

Background

• I did policy debate at Samford for 3 years.
• 2 time NDT qualifier.
• Assistant coach of the SpeakFirst debate team.

Top-level thoughts:

I prefer clear, slow speaking over fast, unintelligible speaking. With online debate, clarity is key. A lot of technology leaves failure points where I may miss something. I will be more likely to vote for the team that carefully explains their arguments over a team that provides more evidence but neglects warrants.

I will not vote for death good or warming good.

If I notice you are clearly clipping cards or are engaging in racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks or behavior, I will vote you down. If you want to call out a team that you believe is clipping cards, debaters are innocent until proven guilty. Be prepared to have it recorded or have some other way for me to verify it.

Disclosure: Debaters should disclose. I am fine with disclosure arguments.

Judge kick: I will kick the cp for the neg if no one tells me not to.

Tech > Truth with limits. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true unless it is obviously unethical or when I go back and read your evidence, it does not say what you say it does. I will read most of the evidence in round but if you're answering a specific argument/link/internal link with a generic, I won't always accept that without contextualization. If you leave it up to me to resolve an argument, you get what you get.

More specific thoughts:

CP

I default to sufficiency framing. The Cp's viability as a winning argument is essentially a product of how much it resolves the aff's impacts and the magnitude of the NB. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. If the CP has no external net benefit-- it must solve better than the aff for some reason.

DA

Be clear on the link level- this means I don't want you to just read cards on why you don't link-- I want an explanation. I will vote for a DA if I think there is a small risk of a link and a significant probability of an impact. I will not vote for a DA if I feel like there is not a significant probability of an impact, even if there is a small risk of a link. There are downsides to every policy-- it's the burden of the neg to prove why their impacts outweigh.

K

You should start with the assumption that I know nothing about your literature base. I will vote for a K if it is specific and interacts with the Aff. I will not vote for generic Ks that are not explained well or lack evidence. Line-by-line is very important for these debates so don't just rely on cards. Unless told specifically otherwise, I assume that life is preferable to death. In order to convince me otherwise, you must prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead. My best piece of advice is that if you want me to vote for the K, you must prove how it SOLVES whatever the debate is about. If the K doesn't solve anything, expect an L. I think too often, Ks get away with cheap solvency. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on bad rhetoric Ks/independent voters- these arguments are sometimes very convincing to me.

T

I am not the best person to judge a super in-depth T debate, but I'll do my best. I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could possibly be persuaded to vote another way. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on T so if you are going to go for it, commit to it. T outweighs condo 98% of the time.

Theory

I lean neg on theory. Condo- good and key to neg flex, but it's a debate to be had. For me to vote on generic condo, there needs to be something egregiously abusive going on in the round. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on contra condo. I could be persuaded that going 5+ off with multiple contradictory conditional options is a voting issue for 2AC fairness and education. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

Resolution

Please read a plan. Without a plan, often the thesis of the aff gets lost, which is super frustrating. This doesn't mean I won't vote for you, but if you decide to not read a plan just make sure that you thoroughly explain what the aff does.

PF & LD

Do not drop line by line to summarize your arguments. I'm more likely to vote for the team that interacts with the other teams' arguments to accelerate their own. I'm fine with CPs, DAs, plans, etc. if you want to run them. Impact calc is a must and make sure you collapse down to your best arguments in the summary. Don't waste time on insignificant arguments you're not going for. You must explain the warrants of the evidence you read. I will not accept the extension of a tag. Lastly, I hate tricks and will vote you down if that's what you go for.

Hi! I debated PF for two years at Durham Academy. In that sense I'm a flow judge, but I also don't have a lot of experience with very progressive arguments/debating, and I see PF as a more lay debate style that should be easily understood and argued using logic and persuasion. I don't have a lot of preferences, although I'm not a huge fan of theory in PF.

I tend to vote based on which team makes arguments that hold up the most logically and are extended through the round. Persuade me with both evidence (that is clearly in support of what you're saying) and warrants. I like a lot of organization and signposting in summary and FF, especially having the debate narrowed down to a few voting points + weighing by the FF -- what is the most important issue(s) in this round? Overall, though, debate how you like, I'm not going to vote against you for any one specific thing!

I'm okay with speaking on the slightly quicker side as long as it's clear and well-modulated (aka doesn't sound like you're just reading really fast) but slower speech and narrowed-down arguments is almost always better than speaking very quickly to fit in a ton of points.

Good luck!!

Please ask in-round if interested, happy to answer any questions! :)

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

I am a parent of a student who is in high school. I am also an Army Veteran. I am new to judging debate, Be nice to each other. I will do my best to be fair and just. Good luck to you all.

I am a parent judge in my third year of judging. I was a trial attorney for 20 years. I judged policy all of last year.

Don't spread. The more informative and understandable the better. I want to be able to listen to you and understand the subject and your argument. I don't want to read your argument, this isn't a writing competition, so speak clearly so I can flow out the the different arguments and responses.

I am familiar with the more technical rules thanks to a year of watching and judging the best in the State. i also try to keep the time flowing so be ready to move on after each speech.

I am a parent judge with no debate experience and it is my second year judging. I prefer for arguments to be laid out cleanly, with the speakers giving sign posts as to where they are in their argument or their opponent's argument.

Stuff my son has written for me but I agree with:

I flow, but I am generally truth over tech.

Don't spread(speak too fast).

No Ks/Theory if you can help it. If you don't know what that means, you aren't using them and it doesn't matter.

Please be quick about card sharing as it delays rounds for you, me, and the rest of the tournament. IF you ask for a lot of cards and don't use that info later, that will be viewed negatively.

I will award higher speaker points if you vary your tone/tempo.

Good luck!

Updated paradigm:

Hello! I haven't judged a round in a while, so please be mindful of that. Slow down if you want to emphasize a point and be extra aware of this since it's harder to hear things via zoom.

I am currently a senior at the University of Florida. I debated throughout high school, competing in both PF and LD, and did policy for a year in college. If there are any parts of this that need further clarification, feel free to email me before round (sabrinacallahan18@gmail.com) or ask me in person before the round starts. Enjoy!

General:

- Do not be blatantly offensive in round. Racism, sexism, ableism, etc. are unacceptable and are a bad norm for debate and life in general. This can cost you speaks or the round in general.

- Go with the style of debate that makes you most comfortable. At the end of the day, the debate round is yours and it is not within my jurisdiction to impose a certain style on anybody for the sake of one round. Regardless of what you choose to read, just focus on the flow because that’s what I’ll be doing as a judge. I’ll flow whatever you choose to read as long as I can understand what you’re saying. With that being said, make sure to slow down for tag lines and keep your spreading intelligible.

- Trigger warnings do matter.

- Doing a lot of weighing between arguments is always a plus.

- I haven’t read lit on this topic, so keep this in mind and don’t assume I’ll know what a specific card is or what certain topic related lingo means.

- While I recognize that debate is a game, make sure to keep this an educational space where positive norms prevail. This seems pretty obvious, but just be aware of the importance of being a decent person in (and out) round. For instance, if you’re a varsity going against a novice debating for the first time, don’t absolutely destroy them for your own pleasure. In short, just be a kind person.

- I’m trying to work on this, but I tend to not flow during CX, so if there’s anything super important that you want me to write down, emphasize this.

- Quality over quantity of arguments.

Frameworks:

- I used to not be a huge fan of framework debate, but increasingly this has changed and I tend to really pay attention to this element of the flow when making my decision, so make sure to keep the framework debate as clean as possible or else it makes it more ambiguous on my end to evaluate the round since it forces me to do some judge intervention in the sense that I then have to decide what mechanism to evaluate the round. I like to see framework clash from the beginning of the round, rather than just being thrown into the last 30 seconds of a rebuttal. Whether this applies to lay rounds or more technical rounds, establishing your framework from the beginning makes me more likely to vote for you.

Lay debate:

- People often shame lay debate, but I think it’s cool and is probably the type of debate that translates best into the real world. Don’t feel that you have to read anything besides this if you aren’t comfortable with it for the sake of impressing anybody in round. I’ll still flow the round as I would any other round, so things such as weighing, analytics, line by line, etcetera do matter. Also, no matter what you do, please don’t go new in the 2NR/2AR (please). I’ll just sit there awkwardly because I can’t evaluate anything.

K’s:

- I’m a huge fan of these so I’m always down for these kinds of rounds. However, just saying that “capitalism, the patriarchy, etc” are bad is not enough to win the round. Have strong and specific links or else the K means nothing to me.

- Concrete alts have more value than ones that just advocate for a pure rejection of said issue, even though I recognize that some Ks make arguments as to why this is uniquely bad and I am open to them.

- Don’t just respond to a K by saying “perm” with no cards or analytics to support it. This does little for all parties involved in the round.

- Don’t assume that either myself or your opponent have read the literature you used. Explaining your arguments will always be a safer option than not.

- Have an ROB/ROJ that is as clear as you can possibly make it.

- Most important of all- be familiar with what you’re reading.

Theory/ Tricks:

- On the K vs theory debate, make sure your shells are calling out legitimate abuse and explain why this abuse impedes the pedagogical benefits of the K. A fair amount of weighing must be done here, or else the round just gets super messy on both ends. I don’t assume that one is higher than the other, but if theory is read specifically against a K, I will evaluate theory as an indict to the K if no weighing arguments are made.

- If you read a shell, make sure you have all parts of the shell and don’t assume that certain things are implied (ie. that education and fairness are voters) or else it’ll be highly likely that you’ll lose on it.

- Condo is a good norm

- Not a huge fan of reasonability, so it’ll take good justifications to get me to buy this argument.

- I’m more inclined to drop the arg than to drop the debater, though this is subject to change depending on the circumstance.

- Have specific interps (ex: “they must do x” instead of “they didn’t do x”) or else you don’t give your opponent a legitimate way to engage with the shell and you force them to spend time trying to dodge abuse, rather than just making it very clear what you interpret to be a good norm for debate. In the case that your opponent has a super blippy interp, I think it’s totally valid to call this out as abusive.

- I don’t read them myself, but I think tricks are cool so have at it if this is your thing. If you make me smile with your creativity, I’ll award you with higher speaks.

Topicality:

- I’m also a huge fan of this kind of debate, so feel free to go for this.

- Absent sources it makes it impossible for what you’re reading to have any validity.

- Assume I’ll evaluate the round through competing interps

Disclosure:

- I’m not the biggest fan of it, but I also don’t really care enough to be repulsed by it. However, I do think that debaters from big schools are the primary beneficiaries from this and will be more inclined to support arguments against it.

Speaks:

- I don’t have a formulaic way of assessing how many speaks I’ll give you, but unless you’re super rude in round or make a fatal mistake, I’m generous with speaks (average range of 28-29.5).

PF Paradigm:

- I spent most of high school doing PF, so I guess technically speaking this is the category I’m most familiar with, even though I haven’t sat through a PF round in a while. I’ll flow the round as I would any other round, except I’ll focus more on evidence since it’s a bigger component of PF than it is in other categories. However, I don’t want to sit through an hour of just four people screaming at each other about which card is more important. Focus on the strength of arguments and the warrants behind them.

Policy paradigm:

- To be completely honest, I’m new to policy and am not too familiar with all of the nuances of it. I’ll flow the round to the best of my abilities, but don’t assume that I will know all of your jargon, even though I think LD has somewhat exposed me to a lot of concepts in policy. Be organized and tell me how to evaluate the round. I’ll apply most of the ways from how I evaluate other rounds into policy, so if you have any specific questions don’t be afraid to ask before the round starts to avoid any confusion.

Don't give me an off-time roadmap if you're not doing something radical/unique in your speech. Don't be mean in cross. Former PF debater but will hold you to a lay standard––aka cool it with the jargon and make your extensions clean/obvious.

I have been a parent judge for PF for six years. Though I take a lot of notes, please do not be fooled into thinking I am a flow judge. I am most definitely a lay judge and appreciate debaters who do not speak too quickly or use a lot of jargon. For example, if you must use a term like "non unique," please specify what part of the argument you are referring to, or better yet, don't use the short-cut term "non unique" at all, as it is more informative if you are more explicit in your reasoning. If you speak so quickly that I do not catch the details of your arguments, you may lose the round, even if your arguments are superior, since I will not have heard them in full. Lastly, if you are dismissive or rude toward your opponents, your speaker points will suffer, and it will impact my decision for the round. Rounds that are conducted in a respectful and collegial manner are much more pleasant for judge and competitors alike, and they tend to result in much higher quality debating all around.

Excellent debaters speak slowly, clearly and with good organization to their presentation.

Speak in plain English and avoid debate speak. Do not "resolve to negate" (no one says that in real life); tell me why I should find that the proposition is wrong or unwise (or the converse).

If you cite to an authority, make it clear what the authority is and why that authority is reliable. For example, it is not "Higgins 26 says". Rather, it could be: "As former Assistant Secretary of Defense John Higgins said in his Foreign Affairs article of _____."

You do not have a "card". You have evidence or opinions described by a third party source.

Be respectful to each other; do not interrupt during crossfire. If you ask a question, allow the opponent(s) to answer. Refer to public officials by their title and with respect in a way that no one knows your politics. For example, refer to them as President Trump, President Obama and President Biden.

If you say your opponents did not respond to your third contention (debate speak!) then make clear what that contention (better referred to as "point", "reason", "premise" etc.) is. The same holds true if you are addressing one of their points.

It is important that I be able to track the organization and logic flow of your arguments. I do that for the purpose of determining overall persuasiveness, not to create a checklist of everything that must be "covered". If there is a major point that I believe is unpersuasive based upon the totality of the arguments, then not every sub-point or sub-argument needs to be addressed. I am definitely not a fan of spreading, it generally shows weakness. To be clear though, if there is a strong argument that is not rebutted, that will weigh heavily in the determination of the winner.

Saying less but in a clear manner is far more important and effective than saying more in a way that cannot be understood.

Stand erect, and make eye contact with the judge(s) and note their reactions. Read my reactions to see if you are going too fast or speaking too softly. I do not care if you yell at me if that is what it takes for you to be loud enough to be heard -- and understood.

If you would like to e-mail me, use: owen.carragher@clydeco.us.

Most importantly:

HAVE FUN AND LEARN EACH TIME.

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

I am a traditional judge. I do not like excessive speed. Speak at a natural pace. Provide support for your contentions/arguments and explain why you believe that you should win the round.

I'm a senior at Harvard with experience in world schools and parli debate. I've never competed in PF.

General thoughts: I flow. I guess I'm tab in the way it's usually understood, but I think the way in which it's usually understand is wrong. This article was written for a different format but it's insightful and very close to how I think about debate.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Evidence can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh explicitly. Debaters tend to be smart and topics tend to be controversial. The logical conclusion is that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intervention. This is unpredictable. I am moody. I'll give you a frustrating RFD.

3) I have a presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts like nuclear war. I will listen to them and evaluate them, but generally believe that you're better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments than showing how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

4) Please don't spread. Brisk conversational pace is ok but if you feel like you need to double breathe, you're going too fast.

5) I've never done a format with theory: I don't know anything about it and generally have a strong bias in favor of arguments about the topic. I will listen to theory if you read it, but make sure to over-explain every concept instead of relying on jargon--I won't know what an RVI is.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

7) I won't read a speech doc. I'll occassionally call for evidence, mostly when you tell me to, but use this very sparingly or I'll be angry at you. Remember point 1), I'm extremely unlikely to actually vote off evidence alone (unless you outright lie about it, then you'll lose!)

I am a first time parent judge.

I don't know any debate terms so please refrain from using them.

Speak loud and slow.

Keep the topic on track. Stay factual and don't overly embellish your arguments or else you'll lose me.

Respect your opponents. Don't be condescending or rude.

Keep calm and have fun!

Add me on the email chain: nilu6060@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

Any offense in final focus needs to be in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make an argument suggesting otherwise.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I find myself thinking they don't really do anything. Read at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

I am not familiar with the technicalities of debate. I will be listening for the best sound arguments.

Background:

I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years and consider myself a flay judge. I'm trained as a scientist so logical argument supported by evidence is what I am looking for. I usually read up about the topic beforehand, so I have some knowledge about it.

Preferences:

I am more tech over truth but the argument needs to be believable for an easier win (I am a little more tech than you might imagine)

Please collapse and weigh your arguments against your opponents' arguments (Quality > Quantity)

I flow but I won’t flow if you’re too fast or hard to understand

I vote of the flow but good speaking always helps

I will call for cards usually if they are important for your case in the round. I take evidence very seriously and will drop you if I find it misconstrued.

Theory: I know nothing about theory or how to evaluate it. If you run it there is a high probability that I won't evaluate it.

Don’t be rude or offensive and don’t interrupt during cross or you’ll get dropped

Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: Brandonchen.135@gmail.com

Ask in round if you want to know more about me

Amanda E. Sawyers

Director of Debate, Mock Trial & Leadership

Various Schools

I am a debate coach with a background in Leadership, Politics, and International Relations. I look for succinct, organized, persuasive speakers with a cohesive case that understand the underlying theme of their case and understand what must be stressed to their target audience. I expect speakers to stress the impact of their case on a micro and macro level. I expect speakers to have anticipated and prepared for the challenges that will be posited by the opposition. I expect speakers to understand the key points that must be stressed in their case. If a speaker reads from a sheet and it is clear that they are unfamiliar with the prepared case, they will not be as persuasive as a speaker that clearly understands the message they wish me to take from the round. I look for students that have prepared to challenge the opposition and do so in a precise, assertive (not aggressive) manner. If you present a plan or counterplan, I expect it to be transparent, solvent, and sustainable. I look for logical refutations delivered at strategic moments throughout the debate. Credit will be given to students that make use of stylistic devices. Lastly, I expect civility and etiquette throughout the entire round. Debate is not a screaming match; it is an opportunity to analyze two sides of an issue and attempt to persuade eloquently. I am honored to adjudicate and look forward to seeing what you bring to the podium.

I am a parent judge. No Jargon please.

Please speak clearly, email: hua.chen.debate@gmail.com.

I will post the results to Tabroom for the prelim rounds.

Be respectful and good luck!

Hello everyone, my name is Kelly. I am a new judge. I wish you all the best of luck!

What am I looking for in a debate?

I value a solid understanding of the actors, strong framing, and plausible mechanisms. It is always a good call to go for a mechanism that is intuitive and believable over one that is strained, even if the strained mechanism could theoretically produce greater impacts.

I enjoy new perspectives that make me think.

I respond well to speeches that begin by establishing what is most valued in a debate, and the burden for each side. I also respond well to teams that demonstrate working together through having unifying themes throughout multiple speeches.

Background:

My background is in public forum. I competed all throughout high school on the national circuit and local circuit in Georgia. Currently, I am the President of the New Haven Urban Debate League and coach parliamentary debate at Yale.

PF Paradigm:

WEIGHING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL EVER DO IN DEBATE! IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWING YOUR OWN NAME!! PLS WEIGH.

If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to resort to my own weighing mechanism, which may be different every round depending on my mood. You don’t want that, so pls for the love of god, make my life and yours easier by weighing. It’s the easiest way to my ballot.

Other stuff:

-I can handle 250 words/minute. Go over, well...your arguments might not make it on my flow.

-I don't expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary. However, you need to respond to turns. Second speaking teams need to extend defense and respond to turns.

-Second speaking team should TRY to respond to turns in rebuttal.

-Voters in final focus should be mentioned in summary.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything.

-I don't weigh anything in cross in terms of the ballot, so bring it up in speeches if there's something important.

Parli Paradigm:

I'm familiar with East Coast parli. I don't do well with theory, so I might not understand it. You can try it, but you still must interact with your opponents' arguments. The way to my ballot is by weighing. You don't need to go for everything at the end of the debate, but you should still respond to opponents' arguments and not extend through ink! Break the last speech into voters and weigh!

Other points (very similar to my paradigm for PF, so take that for what you will):

-Because you're not using evidence, please maintain a 200 word/minute maximum.

-Rebuttals should not be in the final speech. I believe that your rebuttals, at the very minimum, should begin in the member speeches. This allows for final interactions in the final speech between the two sides, and this avoids the idea of "no new arguments in the last speech."

-No tag teaming.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything. If I don't buy it, I will most likely not vote for it...

-Do not extend through ink! Conceded arguments are arguments that were poorly responded to or not at all; to which, you can extend, but if your opponents provide multiple warrants/responses to the argument, you must also respond to the rebuttals.

If you have any questions, please ask in rounds or after by emailing me at mary.chen@yale.edu

Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024

For 2024: I haven't judged in a while so I am rather rusty and I certainly don't have any topic knowledge at this point

Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: victorchen45678@gmail.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)

Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm

Policy:

TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.

2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.

The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate

Top Level Stuff

1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.

2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.

3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.

4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.

5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious

6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.

7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.

8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.

9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.

10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks

29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.

29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right

28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics

28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.

28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.

27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly

<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).

Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.

Now on arguments

DAs

Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.

Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.

If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.

Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.

I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.

CPs and theory

I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.

States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also

Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.

I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.

I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine

Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.

Ks

I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.

FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.

I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.

Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.

Planless affs

I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible

Framework:

The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.

I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.

T

Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.

From Seth Gannon's paradigm:

"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."

On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts

These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.

Reasonability = yes

LD:

I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.

PF:

I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.

Hello, I am Yu Chen and a parent volunteer judge.I will try to decide based on a debater's performance without my opinions. My votes count on how thoroughly you persuade me. I favor slow or medium pace and clear, well-developed arguments. It is important that each team respect its opponents. I don't like to see opponents interrupting or talking over each other too much in the crossfire. I usually will let the speaker finish their argument at a specific time.

This is the eighth time I am judging for PF. I will track time and cue you. If I have a hard time following your pace, I will cue you.

Mispronounced words are a pet peeve of mine. Proper pronunciation shows me you know the word rather than just copying it from a card.

Please introduce yourself when you begin speaking.

I started debate judging in 2020.

weigh

Hello,

Good luck in the round.

Please send me your speech docs to dasomi04@gmail.com

Just a little bit about me. In terms of background, I debated PF in high school. I am okay with speed, but please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. I will flow every speech, but not crossfire. If an interesting point is brought up in crossfire, please bring it up in your other speeches or it will not be relevant to the debate.

I prefer quantifiable impacts and that you weigh impacts. Why does your impact matter more than your opponents?

For clarity, I prefer an off time roadmap before your speech, and sign posts during your speech.

And finally, please do not introduce new arguments during final focus. I will not count them. Make sure to extend your arguments into the final focus.

Terry Choi

Experience: 4 years of debate experience in high school in mainly PF, some LD and BP.

Judging experience: on and off PF, impromptu, etc. during high school and my 5 year university life.

Quick TLDR:

-Spread at your own risk.

-No new arguments in summary and final focus, direct evidence to support existing arguments and rebuttals is A-OK.

-Off-time roadmaps at a reasonable length=OK

-Logic is important, logic with evidence is important-er, logic with evidence and nice impacts is important-est. Evidence alone without logic=big sad, don't do it. If you decide to do it, I will forget about it.

-Grace period: finish your last thought after time is up, but if you can end your speech just before/just as the time is up, that will get you a small bonus to speaker points :)

-Although I am in University and know fundamentals of economics and financial mathematics, pretend that I am a literate high-school education farmer who farms potatoes for a living-hence, explain concepts as concisely as possible, especially if the topic is niche.

If you have more questions, scroll down to the detailed version. Other than that, HLGF, lets have a good debate.

Detailed version (wall of text):

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

Paradigms in PF:

Main ideas:

-Be polite and respectful. Do not bash opponents, keep your emotions in line. There will be consequences depending on severity.

-Be honest. Do not fabricate, manipulate or tamper with evidence. There will also be consequences according to tournament rules.

-Spread at your own risk: you may speak as quickly or slowly at your discretion, but being unclear or too fast that the judge cannot understand your arguments is not the judge's fault, it is yours. If I feel that the speed is too fast and your are too unclear, then I will take off points. This is a high school PF tournament, remember that and try to keep it at that level. If you spread like you are Eminem or a congress debater, I will mostly likely not completely know what you are saying and I may also scream incoherently.

-Time you take in requesting evidence will NOT come out of your or opponent's prep time, but reading opponents evidence will. That being said, if it takes too long to produce evidence, I will start running prep time and if none can be provided in time, it will be disqualified. Still, try to mention the fact that evidence was disqualified to your judge if the evidence was super important in the debate.

-Your arguments should have a premise, evidence, reasoning/link and impacts. Although I believe PF is a more evidence centered debate than other debating styles such as LD, if a team rebuts your evidence with reasoning and you do not defend your evidence with reasoning/reasoning with evidence, they may win the argument. Evidence alone does not win you arguments.

-Framework (including defining key definitions) is totally fine, but prepare to justify your definitions or framework using reasoning and evidence. If your opponents points out that they may be unjustified/abusive and you do not defend it/fail to defend it, I will not accept your framework. Conversely, if I believe your framework is abusive/unjustified but your opponents do not point it out, I will accept the framework as the opponents apparently had no issue with it. Just don't revolve all your rounds on the framework war, no judge wants to see that.

-Do not bring up new arguments in Summary or Final Focus speeches; I will disregard it, even if your opponents do not point it out. Extending existing arguments are totally fine. New evidence is fine in both summary or final, but only if it supports your existing arguments or rebuttals directly. If I do not see the evidence as direct enough, I throw it out.

-No Kritiks please, nor things such as plans.

-"Grace Time": end your line of thought, and stop. If you go too over the time limit, I will start deducting points.

-I do allow offtime roadmaps. However, if it is too long or excessive/exploitive, I will start cutting points.

-In crossfires, I will allow you to answer the question even if the time is up; no asking new questions when time is up though.

-Content warnings: if you are going to talk about some really graphic content (example: detailed stories of rape, murder, genocide, lobotomy, etc) then give a content warning to everyone before you begin your speech. A good rule of thumb is that if it isn't something you should speak in front of a sheltered elementary schooler, it probably requires a content warning. Better safe than sorry.

-IF OFFLINE TOURNEY: Turn on airplane mode, but I will allow you to turn it off if you need to reference a card requested in the debate. No evidence searching is allowed during debates. Keep in mind this rule can change based on tourney/state rules.

-IF ONLINE TOURNEY: tournament regulations come first before what I am about to state, but also I would like everyone to turn on their cameras and mute their mics when they are not speaking. Try to debate in a quiet place without a lot of people, if there is a person who is next to you once in a while it looks pretty suspicious. Also, no evidence searching online in the middle of tourney- evidence you have should be in paper, and if it is obvious you are searching up crap online while people are debating I will make a note of that.

-I will also be reading important evidence after the debate, so assume that the opponents' evidence are not fabricated during the debate even if they are really powerful or sound farfetched. For good measure, if you are sketchy about a certain piece of evidence that they used, let me know after I disclose the winner. If the evidence is found to be fabricated, I will ensure that action is taken, your tourney standings rectified and the fabricators of evidence punished to the fullest extent.

Those are my main PF paradigms. Have fun! :)

Parent/lay judge familiar with other types of debate; have judged PF several times. Speaking briskly is OK, but if you speak too quickly for me to understand / take notes, it will be difficult to place weight on those points. Easier for me to understand if you minimize debate jargon. Both sides should be civil -- for instance, crossfire questioning time should be roughly equally distributed between both teams. Prefer fewer high quality arguments / crystallization to a smear of random cards or impacts that require suspending disbelief or logical leaps. If you strongly emphasize a piece of evidence I will probably ask to read that card. Please make sure it says what you argue it says. I don't understand "theory" arguments and believe that the debate should be about the stated resolution. If you exchange evidence you can include me on the email chain using apchuhome@gmail.com.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 8th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way. I like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

I competed in extemp for 6 years (3 in high school, 3 in college) along with doing Congress and some PF in HS and have since coached pretty much every speech event and world schools debate for the past 2 years. For reference, I'm a school-affiliated judge but work at a government contracting company doing work for the Marine Corps, so be warned that national security is my niche area of expertise.

WORLDS: I specifically look for students who use this style of debate to persuade (read: talk at a normal pace. Worlds was created to counter the trend of debates turning technical, and I'm going to try and uphold that as best I can).

PF: I look for logical consistency of arguments and general plausibility. Do not run Ks or anything else wild with me. I will not be persuaded by arguments like "because we use the word 'the' that means the world will end in nuclear war so vote pro" which I have seen run. Also, I can handle speed so long as you work up to it but I tend to deduct a few tenths of a speaker point for excessive speed since PF was never designed to be a technical debate event and I feel like that's going against the event standard as written by the NSDA. But if you want to spread then I will not automatically preclude you from winning the round and I will be perfectly capable of following along.

BOTH: Show me you care about your arguments, and show me why I should vote for you. I see plenty of debates where there's clash, but tell me why your side comes out on top at the end of the day. If both sides have the same position some clash will get declared a wash, and there's never a wash in debate because one side always does a better job fulfilling the value or criterion or impact better than the other side. Just saying you're winning an argument does not make it true, show me why you're winning and trace the progress of that clash for me. I do flow, but I'm not a fan of teams saying "extend contention ___" and then providing no reason why I should do that. Again, tell me why the opponent's response or lack thereof is sufficient to warrant extending something.

Other than that, have fun! I definitely notice when students are enjoying themselves and tend to give an extra style point (or speaker points in speech and PF) or two for that.

good luck lol

Before the round begins, I kindly request that the teams send me their cases in advance. This will greatly assist me in keeping track of the arguments and taking thorough notes during the round. Although this is not a requirement, it will help to improve the quality of my decision and feedback. I would like to assure you that the case information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of the round. Teams will not be penalized if they choose not to share their case. This request is solely aimed at enhancing the academic outcome of the round.

How I base my decision: Warrants (45%), Weighing Mechanism (45%), Impact (10%)

• It is important to note that while teams may focus on the magnitude of their impact, a strong argument also requires a well-supported warrant and a method for comparing and weighing arguments. A lack of these elements can weaken the overall effectiveness of an argument.

• Tips to Strengthen Warrants in a Debate: 1) Challenge or defend the logic or evidence presented by your opponent instead of simply restating your own argument. This will bring new information to the discussion and help me understand the issue better. 2) During crossfire, ask "how" and "why" questions that focus on the reasoning behind your opponent's argument. Using common sense can also be valuable, as it can support a hypothesis that is backed by evidence and basic reasoning.

• Examples of weighing mechanisms: utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, priority based on urgency or importance, ethical principals: fairness, justice or equality, trade-offs.

Speaker points: Content & preparedness Quality (80%), speed (20%)

Your speaker points will primarily be determined by the quality of your arguments. The rest of the score will take into account your speaking speed. Public Forum debates should be clear and easily understood by all listeners, and speaking at a moderate pace will ensure everyone is able to fully follow and engage with the debate. I am comfortable with average speaking speeds, but if there are any misunderstandings due to excessive speed, it's important for the speakers to remember that it is ultimately their responsibility to communicate their ideas clearly.

PF:

My background as a debater is in parli, and that tells you a lot about my philosophy: evidence matters, but logic/reasoning/narrative is what I'll remember.

WEIGH. Weigh and meta-weigh. If you only take one thing away from my paradigm, let if be this!

Collapse your arguments in summary/FF. Give me voters that bring out major themes. I love FFs snd summaries that begin with, "Here are the three most important reasons you should return an aff ballot," instead of "I'll do their case and then our case."

I don't love jargon-heavy arguments in PF. I do sincerely believe that PF rounds should be intelligible to an educated lay judge. I *love* a good progressive argument, though, as long as it's explained clearly.*

*(more information if you're curious: my standard for 'clearly' is, your opponents could make a reasonable refutation of your argument by thinking on their feet based on a reasonable HS-level amount of background knowledge about capitalism/racism/whatever, without having spent a ton of time studying theory/Ks in particular. I won't buy the response in rebuttal that progressive arguments are intrinsically unfair to competitors from small programs; I would buy the response that your opponents have not explained their arguments clearly and were tech-y enough that you can't reasonably respond without specialized knowledge.)

Speed is fine if you signpost well and your arguments are clear. (If you're making a complicated or subtle argument, slow down for that argument.) I won't read your speech doc, though. If I didn't hear it, you didn't say it.

If you're consistently interrupting your opponents in cross, I will ignore what you're saying when you interrupt them. Be courteous! Win on the strength of your arguments, not your aggressiveness.

Generally tech-y. Exceptions: I won't count it if you throw out an obviously objectively terrible response to an argument in rebuttal so that the argument's not officially conceded (that counts as "basically conceded" to me). I also can't bring myself to vote for arguments that are intrinsically and obviously offensive ("racism good").

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

World Schools:

Don't give me a PF/Policy/LD round! I really sincerely will base 40% of my decision on speaking style. Tech ≤ truth.

Here are a few things I like to see in the debate:

1. PLEASE don't speak too fast. If you do, don't expect me to get all your arguments

2. Overall, be kind and have fun

Good luck, and may the best team win!

Member of Harvard College Debate Union

- No Spreading!! Clear communication is a major consideration.

- Quality over Quantity

May the odds be in your favor!

Hello! I am a parent of a second year Newton South Debater. This is my third tournament judging. I will come into every round a clean slate, and I will take notes, but I don't know how to "flow".

Some thinks I like:

A slow, understandable pace. I know debaters have a tendency to speak fast, and I will try to keep up, but if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate your arguments.

If you tell a story. One or two big ideas for me is really persuasive. Explain in depth why your arguments are correct (my son says this is called warranting)

Weighing! I don't understand the buzzwords, but I would also like to know in a comparative worlds analysis why your world is preferable.

Be Nice! Humor is appreciated, but don't be disrespectful.

Fist Bumps!
Some things I don't like:

Speed (see above)

Rudeness
Off-case arguments (please no)

Buzzwords

Going for everything - explain why your best argument wins you the round

At the end of the day, debate is about fun ~ so please have fun! Also let me know if I can make the round more accessible to you!

Name: Liz Dela Cruz Contact Info: lizdelacruz@me.com PF Paradigm (Updated 021621)

Expirence: I debated and coached Policy (Cross-ex) debate for a number of years. If you want to know what I did, scroll down, I have my Cross-Ex (Policy) Paradigm below.

Note:

I am a flow judge! I will provide a Google Doc Link to use. I prefer this to an email chain because I there is a delay in getting emails sometimes. I also don't like putting the evidence in the chat function. It is easier for me to go back and review the evidence.

I also usually always pop up a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my Paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

General:

1. Debate is about having a good time and learning, please be respectful to everyone. Just remember that this is just a round and there will be another. Do your best and have fun.

2. Due to my policy background, I like Signposting. Please let me know where to go on the flow. Think of my flow as a blank slate. You tell me what to write and where. Moving contentions or switching from Pro flow to Con flow? Tell me.

3. I will vote for FW, independent Voting issues, and Pre-req arguments. But there needs to be enough substance for me to do so. If you decided to go for any of these, make sure to extend the case evidence that is needed to back it up. If not, it tends to be hard for me to vote on it.

4. I debated both theory and K in debate. If you want to do it, I am fine with it, but make sure to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic and your corresponding side.

5. If there is something said in Cross and you would like to use it in the round I am fine with it. But you need to make sure that you bring it in the speech to make it binding.

6. Just saying cross-apply case doesn’t mean anything. Or extend …. Card from case- give me substance and warrants for why you are extending it for me to consider it.

Summary/FF:

1. Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the Case to the summary and from the Summary to the Final Focus. It is key make sure to extend and explain.

2. You can only use what you extend in the Summary in the Final Focus.

3. I am a big fan of weighing! Magnitude, scope, impact analysis, substance love it all. Makes my job easier.

4. Break it down! Give me voting issues!

Speed:

1. I did policy, speed is not an issue. Please don’t ask me if you were to fast. I can hear you.

2. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If you are concerned about me not flowing your speech, then slow down and enunciate!

3. I will not tell you clear or slow, those things are for you to work on as a debater. If you are worried about it, then do speaking drills before the round and speak slower.

Policy (Cross-Ex) Paradigm (Updated 041715)

Affiliation: SouthWestern College, Weber State University

Paperless Ish: Flashing is Preferred: Prep time ends when you hit "save on the USB". Flashing is not considered part of prep time. If you take more than two minutes to save on the USB and get files flashed over, I will ask that you "run prep time". If you are going to do an email chain and would like to put me on it feel free. My email is listed above. If teams have spandies and tubs and USE 60% or more paper in a debate, will get some sort of candy or asian yummyness!

Experience: I was a policy debater for SouthWestern College. We run socialism and sometimes not socialism but more often than not it’ll be socialism. Did I mention we run socialism?

Voting Style: Do what you want but make sure it’s on my flow. Be clear and concise and tell me how I should interpret the round. Don’t make the assumption that I’ll randomly agree with your arguments. Spell it out for me so that there is 100% chance I get it. Spend time on the overview or underview. Make it very clear where I should be voting and why. This is something that makes my life easy and the life of all judges easy. Paint me a picture using your arguments. Give me reasons why I should prefer your position over theirs. The clearer the debate is the easier it will be to vote for you. Heck clear up the debate if it gets messy you’ll get nice speaker points. See how I’m telling you all to do the work? That’s because the debaters not the judge should be deciding how the judge should judge. I’m an open canvas. Paint me a nice picture. Just no nemo.

Speed and flowing: There’s fast and then there’s fast. As much as I’d like to admit I can keep up with a giant card dump in the neg block with a billion arguments, it’s just not going to happen. I can keep up with most speed reading. It’ll be easier for me to get your arguments down on my flow if you slow down during the tag/citation so I can actually hear it super well. If you spread your tags and I’m not keeping up, that’s on you as a debater. Arguing when you lose because I didn’t have that card or arg flowed when you made it a blippy mess isn’t going to do anything so don’t even try. That being said, I keep a very concise flow. And what you say in the 2nr and 2ar will be what I vote on. Policy

Argument Issues: Case: I feel like sometimes case debates get overlooked a lot. If you’re aff, don’t be afraid to use your case as giant offense if the other team is only to go 1 or so off. Good cases can swill outweigh da’s and K impacts if done well.

Non-Traditional Affs I evaluate Non-traditional Affs the same as traditional ones. However, there are things I like clearly defined and explained: 1. Explanation of advocacy 2. Role of the Ballot 3. Role of the Judge 4. Why is your message/mission/goal important.

Topicality I don't really care to much for T, but I will vote on it. I haven't voted yet on T being a reverse voting issue, but I do believe that T is a voting issue. I also tend to lean towards competing interpretations versus reasonability. Although, if the argument and work is there for reasonability, I will vote on it. Especially if the other team does not do the work that is needed on Topicality.

Theory Just saying things like "reject the team" or "vote Aff/Neg" typically doesn't do it for me. I would much rather hear, "reject their argument because it … blah blah blah." On the other side, saying "reject the argument not the team" is not enough for me to not consider it. I need solid reasons to reject the team like abuse. Actual abuse in round based on what was run is very convincing.

Performance I like watching performances. Since I judge by my flow, it allows me to separate myself from how I evaluate the round. Please note: Just because I am expressive during the debate does not always mean that I am leaning to your side. I am a very expressive person and thus why I judge strictly by my flow. So if there are points that you want me to highlight, pull them out in the later speeches. It will help with clarification and clash.

Kritiks I like kritiks. That being said a lot of mumbo jumbo gets thrown around a K debate. If you want me to pull the trigger on the K I need to know how it functions. Explain the rhetoric of your K to me in the block. Don’t assume I know what your alt is and what it will do in conjunction to the aff. That’s your job to make sure I know. Explain what your alt is and how it solves not only the impacts you read but also the aff’s or why the aff’s impacts don’t matter. Don’t assume that I’ll vote for “reject the ***” alts. Spend time in the block and in the 2nr how your K works in the round. Give me a picture of what the world of the K looks like and what the world of the aff looks like.

DA Not all disads are created equal. The Aff should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is a must.

CP I believe that CPs should compete with the 1AC. Not only does this give better clash, but it also allow the 2A to defend their Aff.

I am a new judge. you should avoid jargon and should not speak too quickly.

About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

1. Speak clearly and confidently, this goes a long way in making it easier to flow. If I can't understand or hear it, I can't write it down. Try not to spread.

2. I appreciate framing of impacts.

3. I don't judge Cross, but if concessions from cross are mentioned in speech I'll judge those.

4. I won't ask you to stop speaking but I'll stop flowing 5 seconds over the allotted speech time.

5. Know your case. There's nothing more disappointing than watching a team debate when they don't understand their own case.

6. Be respectful of your opponents. This includes the language you use in cross and speeches.

Don't stress and have fun with it. If you want more specifics ask me before the round.

Please speak clearly and deliberately. Content and Presentation are equally important.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I am a parent judge and not a professional but I have judged a lot of tournaments.

I do flow and I do weigh crossfire.

Please state your contentions clearly. As in contention, one is ...

I request that you speak clearly and coherently. If you are speaking so fast that I don't understand you, your points are lost on me.

Please let me know which team is taking prep time and tell me when you start.

If you don't mention a point in the summary speech I will assume you dropped it.

I like to see clear introductions, summaries and conclusions. Please show me that you understand the topic and then clearly develop your case and impact work. Link your arguments and be specific. Make sure your rebuttals do their job, but make sure your own case is developed as well as your criticism of your opponents. Solid research is usually necessary to win positions. Feel free to ask any questions before the round if there is anything you would like to know about. Good luck and have fun!

Background - PhD in science and engineering (materials, chemical)

Debate judge for a few years - judged middle school and high school debates

I will flow the round

For me:

tech > truth

clear/structured > compiling/spreading

cards/logic reasoning > buzz words/waving hands

Public speaking > screen reading

Respect to other team > aggressive

Get permission first > say sorry later

I value clear and concise arguments and responses with strong cards or logic reasoning. Compiling/spreading is not encouraged.

If your opponent wins one link in a link chain, then you can not use your impact. Make sure that the links are for your side in order for your impact to stand.

Make sure that your impacts are clearly stated. I do not want to guess what your impact is. Tell me what it is clearly.

If you give me a framework, tell me why the framework should be there. Explain why the framework works in the resolution and why the framework will benefit the round.

I will not view what you say in cross-fire for the actual debate unless the point is brought up in speeches.

In rebuttal, if you are planning to respond, give me clear signposting on what your response is. Don't just repeat your contentions again as that is not responding to what your opponent is saying.

Make sure you extend your contentions throughout the debate. In summary, you should extend your contentions and collapse if you want. I want weighing in summary on the impacts. Tell me why your impact is more important than the opponents' impact.

I value probability > magnitude and scope. If something will not happen, then there is no magnitude or scope. Make sure you prove that your impact has a probable chance.

I want voting issues in final focus to help me understand your main arguments. Tell me what is important in final focus so I know what to judge off of.

The team that convinces/persuades me that their side is correct in the debate will win.

Experience

I competed in speech and debate for four years in high school. I mostly competed in Extemp, Congressional Debate, and World Schools and a few times in PF (I have a good understanding of the event).

Content

That is to say, the winning team has the better plausible impacts that outweigh the other team’s impacts (if you do not do the weighing then I will have to, but it would be beneficial for you to do the weighing). In order for impacts to be plausible, then you should have warrants that clearly lead me to your impacts. To show that your opponent’s impacts are not plausible you may attack their warrants, links, or the validity of their evidence.

Delivery

Please do not spread. I want to make sure I can understand and put everything you say on my flow, but if you spread or go too fast then I will miss it. Also too fast speeds will probably result in a reduction of speaker points.

Other Notes

- Please do not run a “K” or a “theory” and debate the topic!

- Don’t raise NEW arguments (considered for the first time in the debate) in grand cross fire and especially not in final focus, I will not consider them and it won’t make me happy.

- In most cases, I will give the win to the team who does a better job of convincing me that their arguments are better and will assign speaker points based on style/delivery, so I do give low point wins.

Good Luck!

As a first time judge, I am engaged by the talent of so many young minds. Being a new judge, I've already determined reducing the speed of your speech (just slightly) will give me a bit more time to grasp everything you are trying to say in such a short amount of time. The more of your points that I hear and absorb allows me to make a decision on your content.

And just remember to have fun!

Hello Everyone,

I am a lay judge and am excited to participate in the tournament. Some things I would like participants to consider

1) It would be helpful if you could speak at a pace that is easy for me to understand

2) Avoid jargon

3) Sign postings during the debate are appreciated

4) Be respectful and have fun

Good Luck

I'm a parent judge from last year.

Say clearly and articulate your points well.

Please be polite, slow.

Be respectful.

And have fun!

Hi! I'm Navin and hopefully, I'll be judging you today!

Some things you should keep in mind:

1) Please weigh your arguments, preferably as early as rebuttal. Weighing must be comparative (don't just state how big your impact is. Actually make a comparison against the other team's impacts).

2) Have a clear narrative from the beginning. From second rebuttal onward, it should be clear what arguments you are going for. I don't like shifty strategies where teams go for arguments that they only spent 10 seconds on in a previous speech.

3) Warrant your responses. I will not be compelled to believe a piece of evidence if you just say "x author says this therefore it is true." I need a justification behind the claim. If you want me to consider responses and/or arguments, warrants and links need to be extended in every speech.

4) Speed is not an issue for me. Just send a speech doc.

5) Evidence quality is important but it is the other team's responsibility to call out bad evidence ethics, not mine. I'm not going to drop you if you misrepresent evidence but I will be less compelled to believe your argument.

6) Civility in the debate space is extremely important to me. Do not be rude or make any offensive comments. Some snarky behavior I can handle. Repeated disrespectful comments and behavior will affect your speaker points and maybe even results.

7) Progressive arguments are not my cup of tea. However, as far as I see it, they function like any other argument, so as long as you structure it like a regular arg, I should be able to understand and flow.

8) Debate shouldn't be as stressful of an activity as it is. Too many people treat it as a competition at the expense of the enjoyment of the activity and the opportunity to share your beliefs. Persuasion and appeal are core parts of debate and will help you in the real world. So remember, have fun! :)

Good luck!

Questions before round? Contact me at navindurbhakula@college.harvard.edu or Navin Durbhakula on Facebook.

I am a debate parent in my first year of serving as a judge. I am a partner at a small environmental law firm in Boston. I was a middle and high school History teacher for 7 years before going to law school. I expect debaters to listen to and be directly responsive to the arguments of the other side. I look for each debater to get involved in every aspect of the format, including Grand Cross. I do not need debaters to provide an off-time roadmap previewing what they are going to say during their allotted time. If you believe such a roadmap is important enough to spell out and use as a framework for your comments, you can devote some of your time to it. Debaters can use timing devices during the debate, but they should not use any alarms while tracking their opponents’ time. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I appreciate debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I will deduct points for any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class.

Email: maverickedwards1@gmail.com

I think that conditionality should be a last resort; I am not sure why it has become so popular as the B strategy for several teams.

Reasonability should not be argued as an alternative frame to competing interpretations because I must endorse an interpretation at the end of the debate. Instead, I think reasonability is best used as a framing argument to raise the threshold for the abuse or potential abuse Negative teams must prove.

Counterplans that result in the plan are problematic; I have a preference for theoretical objections over perm do the cp.

I generally think that fairness is good and the only impact a ballot can 'solve.' Impact turns to clash, fairness, predictability, etc. are difficult to win in front of me absent technical concessions.

I prefer to vote for arguments with concrete, material strategies. An alternative or 1AC that advocates and defends a movement instead of USFG-based action is much more appealing to me than a strategy based on criticism without contestable action.

Critical teams should spend time explaining arguments in front of me in practical terms without jargon. I think the pedantry in academia can easily permeate debaters' blocks and strategies. Big words or concepts that are familiar to people versed in the literature but not the general public will hurt your application of the theory and may lead to a frustrating decision.

Coach @ Asian Debate League

Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017

Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021

Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

I treat judging debate with the same love and care that I treat my job. I love what we do.

My biases:

I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.

I didn't go for K's much but I really like debating them vs my policy aff. More than policy v policy debates. Links are the most important thing for me. Impacts are a close second. I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.

I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.

I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.

I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.

Status quo is always an option=judge kick

How I judge:

I work hard to listen and read your evidence. I am honest about what I don't understand. I am patient with novices.

Be clear or go slower (7 or 8/10) for online debate otherwise I'll miss the nuance in your arguments. I clear twice before I stop flowing.

I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.

For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)

I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.

I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

Judging History

I am a parent judge. I have judged PF before. This is the first time judging LD.

Preferences

Please speak slowly and please use common terms.

If you want to send documents in advance, my email is jsfang@yahoo.com.

Here are the things that I value most in a debate tournament:

1) Be respectful!

2) Be clear on your reasoning!

3) I am particularly interested in how you can elaborate the impacts.

Hi! I am a PF debater and a flow judge. Tech>Truth I have debated throughout my high school years, so speed is free with me. ENUNCIATE if you are using speed. I won't write down what I don't understand.

It is your job to weigh in speeches, and it is my job to judge you based off of that. If you give me no weighing, I can't really do the comparative analysis for you- the debate becomes bland and I give a decision that you might not be satisfied with.

Try to frontline in second rebuttal- respond to important turns at least. Moreover, since summary is now 3 minutes, you HAVE to extend rebuttals and frontline and WEIGH in summary. If it is dropped, then it is dropped. Do not try to extend or respond to something you dropped, especially in final focus. I am not going to count it, so it is a waste of time.

You can run theory and K's, but I have no soft spot for it. If it is complicated, explain it well or I am not buying.

Give off-time roadmaps or signpost, where ever and whenever you can. It is much easier for me to follow your speech. If your speech is all over the place, do not expect me to follow it.

I am super hands off when judging, so I won't call for a piece of evidence unless you compel me to call for it.

Please add me to your email chain, or evidence sharing doc using this email: yingying.fang.debate@gmail.com

Warrant your evidence! Don't just give me an empiric without any explanation! I value good analytics over cards, but cards obviously help a lot too.

I don't count prep for calling cards, but I do when reading them.

MAKE IT CLEAR WHEN YOU ARE USING PREP. Since everything is online, don't be sneaky! I can tell if something is off, and I will not be nice if I catch you in the act.

Collapse! Please narrow your speeches into the clashes and core arguments of the round. Drop unnecessary arguments and be strategic! If not, the debate can be become muddled and stronger arguments don't have the time to shine.

Time yourselves! I will give a 5-10 second leeway, but I will stop writing any new points after that period. To signal speeches past-time, you will be able to see my timer in the air, or a hand gesture pointing to my wrist.

I am more lenient towards new and younger debaters; don't worry too much about rules at this stage and just build basics! Always make sure to check feedback!

My facial expressions are very obvious, so if I look confused, then I probably am. Look to me in the round to see if I am following you.

I enjoy a bit of humor in speeches, especially puns, but don't be rude in or out of the round. I will deduct speaks for any derogatory language or discrimination of ANY kind; the world is already very melancholy, so be happy and kind debaters!

Just do your best! :))

I am a parent judge but because of my favorite daughter's constant discussions regarding the septober topic, I do have some topic knowledge.

Somethings I look out for:

Clarity

Consistency

Collapsing

Extensions to FF

Weighing

Hello! Quick background on me, I did PF all four years of high school and now do APDA/BP with the Harvard College Debating Union.

I'm a pretty standard judge:

1) Summary/Final Focus

i. I generally will only vote off offense that is included in summary AND final focus.

ii. Turns that you want me to vote off of must be in first summary.

iii. Defensive responses for the second speaking team need to be in both summary/final focus.

2) Please WARRANT the cards you care about. Otherwise, they generally don't matter.

3) YOU MUST TERMINALIZE AND WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS! If you do not do this, it will be up to my judgment what matters most in the round. (My judgment will likely not be what you like, so PLEASE collapse and weigh your voters).

4) I am not a fan of theory unless it's clearly relevant to the round.

I am a parent judge with about 6 years of experience judging Public Forum debates

Speak clearly and do not spread

I attempt to flow the round,it helps if you signpost your arguments

Public Forum

I have been judging Public Forum Debate for over three years and I have been a trial attorney for over 25 years.

I expect respectful and knowledgeable debaters that present CLEAR arguments supported by evidence.

The debaters' job should be to persuade the common person that has no knowledge of the topic.

The debate should not be technical but rather based upon the strength of the arguments and the debaters' ability to persuade.

Speech

I have been judging Speech for over two years, but I have been a trial attorney for over 25 years.

Extemp speakers should answer the question and the answer should be supported by some evidence.
It is beneficial to have a good intro, facts and a conclusions that sums up your answer/position.

With regard to other forms of Speech, please be clear and engaging in your presentation.

ALL SPEAKERS MUST BE RESPECTFUL TO EACH OTHER

UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

Hello debaters! I am relatively new to judging so I'm going to ask you to avoid using jargon and to try to speak slowly. Even though this event is online, I hope you can still enjoy yourself and learn some new things. Thank you! ~Mrs. Folsom

Hello Debate Scholars,

I love to see well developed and researched contentions. The more concise and endepth evidence the better. I enjoy when scholars are aware and show compassion for communities and for topics that focus on tough social and political issues. It is important for debaters to have a solid understanding of the various stories, narratives and experiences of the stakeholders involved within each issue. I appreciate culturally relevant stances that embrace and tackle deep rooted issues surrounding race, racism, discrimination, identity and equity. I most enjoy when debate scholars try their very best to present clear, concise and solution based speeches that uphold the dignity and respect for every person involved in their speech. I have been coaching middle school and high school debate for 7 years. My teams have won League, State and National Championships. It is with great honor that I am fortunate to see debate scholars who debate with love, respect and a great spirit of competitiveness for their craft.

Sincerely,

Chiara D. Fuller

I'm a freshman at Fordham University studying finance and law. I've debated public forum for four years; it's now my third year coaching. In the past, I've received two gold bids.

Preferences:

- second speaker must frontline

- pls don't just read impacts. I care about the links getting you to that impact, regardless of how dramatic you make the impact sound

- summary must extend (don't just say extend, reexplain the arg)

- use voters in FF

- I don't flow cross but make cross fun and aggressive for speaker pts

- If you take too long to get a card, I deduct prep time and speaker pts 

don't stress, have fun!

email: cherygada@gmail.com

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

I look for logically strong arguments with a thorough and persuasive explanation.

Examples are welcome, but only if they serve as an addition to an existing argument or if they serve as the basis for the explanation of an argument.

I will credit framing, comparatives, and weighing additionally.

Wayzata (MN) 21'

GMU (college) 25'

In High School I competed for Wayzata High School (2018-2021) and garnered multiple national outrounds in HI, OO, Poetry, POI, PPS (prepared prompt speaking) and even have a title in DI from the TOC. I now am a competitor for George Mason's Forensics team in Fairfax, Virginia where I compete in POI, Poetry, Prose, DI, Duo, ADS, CA, and Info with big level finals in most, (I have 11 national finals and 5 national championships across AFA/NFA). Since I graduated, I have coached at Stillwater high school, private coached numerous students to success at NIETOC, NSDA, UKTOC, and NCFLs. I currently am a volunteer coach at my Alma Matter, Wayzata!

I pretty much only use tab like this when I'm judging debate so here's debate at the top, and I wrote a speech paradigm because I was bored one day.

DEBATE

PF/Policy:

I'm a pretty lay judge (I'll probs talk a lil' bit before the round and give you a brief summary of this paradigm if you hadn't checked it out beforehand) but if there is one thing you do take away from my paradigm: please don't spread, (policy, sure, I'll try and keep up), but if you're in PF and are spreading, I may drop speaks, not astronomically though. I value your voice when you're not speaking at 100 mph. I'm generally a flow judge, but I don't always flow card authors/names. My focus on the flow is getting what the evidence claims and what the warrant is, rather than who the source was. Moreover, if you wanna add me on an email chain, go ahead @premganesan12345@gmail.com . That being said, I'll mainly use it SOLELY to see if you and your opp are exchanging cards correctly and timely, any evidence in those docs that YOU DO NOT BRING UP IN THE ROUND WILL NOT BE JUDGED UPON.

Generally: I like sign posting, off time roadmaps, clear voters, I like when you extend your flow, sensible impacts (not just war is bad), solid/timely citation.

I'm also a very very VERY expressive human! I'll make a face if I believe you misstated something. I'll nod if I think you're making a good point. I'll shake my head if I think you're making a poor point. This doesn't mean that I'm voting for you or against you. It just means I liked or didn't like that particular statement.

LD:

I study Economics with a concentration in Political and Philosophical Economy. I'm well versed in sensing balanced arguments and will look for balanced arguments. This is a values debate at the end of the day, so argue values. Argue morality. Argue Justice. Argue any of the 7 deadly sins for all I care. LD has become far more about random tangental examples and far less about value-based arguments. Play the game and bring me some weird cases, I don't care. You think I'm joking, but I am not. Just don't lose the flow.

Congress:

I usually let PO's work their magic. I love sitting back and watching congress. Here's some wise words from my friend Sam Padmanabhan, all of which I agree with:

- Cite complete sources → Author, Publication, Month, Year. Also be cognizant of source quality. I want to see expert analysis, empirical data, etc.

- POs should make the round feel seamless. The ideal PO runs the chamber so well that I don't even know they're there. I will rank good POs very well. (top 4 usually)

- I need to see clash. People often mischaracterize Congress as a speech event; this is not true. Congress is debate so I need to see clash, refutation, clear interaction between arguments. Especially if you give a later cycle speech, make sure you’re engaging with what’s been said in the round (either by refuting it or crystallizing the issues). New arguments in the 4th or 5th cycle won’t help you. When doing refutation, the preferred style is line by line OR picking the major arguments and arguing at the warrant level.

SPEECH

INTERP:

I had a speech paradigm but it was me saying normal speech norms in my own way so lemme just say. Have fun, do what the purpose of whatever even it is you're doing, and be In time. If you're under 8:00, your rank may be affected, fill the time, use the time. If you're over 10:30, I won't stop you, go 16 min for all I care, I won't stop you at all, you (unfortunately) will not get my one. But still you'd be surprised how many people miss these marks, I always say if you look like you're having the most fun in the round you're automatically top half. Speech is beautiful but jading, find the cool things and speak on that.

OVERALL

I don't tolerate bigotry in ANY form: racism, sexism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia, etc. If I see any signs of this in any speech/debate, I will not be afraid to drop you. I will be harsh, but I write some of the LONGEST ballots you'll ever receive according to my coach-friends whose students I've judged lol. Ultimately, I am a speech NERD. I watch so many speeches (high school and college) and know pretty much any speech on that final stage in the last few years. I love this activity, and love true advocacy. If you have ANY questions whatsoever, please reach out to me via email @premganesan12345@gmail.com : I mean it, if you have any questions about the ballot, reach out. This is a communicative activity built on communication.... so COMMUNICATE WITH ME!!!! Have an amazing time and have so so so much fun!

Prem Ganesan (they/them)

A little bit about me: I debated at the Bronx High School of Science for 4 years, where I was one of the captains of the PF team and broke at Gold TOC in my junior year. I am now a junior at Princeton University on their debate team as well. I consider myself a relatively flow debater, and so I will also be judging on the flow.

TL; DR

I am a pretty standard flow judge; if you debate well, both in terms of the technical aspect and persuasion aspect, that will make me happy. To take from my partner Tenzin Dadak's paradigm, the only equation you need to know is: Warrant + Weigh = Win

For the email chain and any questions, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

Novices, scroll down towards the end, unless you're curious. Here's the long version.

Extended:

The way I evaluate every round is pretty simple- I look to weighing/framing first, and whoever I think is winning the weighing, I look to their arguments first. Then, if I think that there is a plausible risk of offense on that argument, I vote for that team- I don't even look at the other side of the flow. It's that simple, so it should inform you on what to prioritize in the round to get my ballot.

More things to do to secure my ballot:

1. Collapse. Too many times teams spread themselves too thin by trying to argue that they are winning every argument in the round, which makes it even more difficult to just win one; towards the later speeches, please whittle the round down to one or two major pieces of offense/voters for me.

2. Extend offense and frontline in summary and final focus. Pretty simple- if you don't tell me why I should vote for you and why your argument still holds true even after their rebuttal, the likelihood is that I will not vote on it.

3. WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE. Warranting, for me, is the most interesting part of debate because that is where your logical reasoning and understanding of the world comes into play- just asserting a statement to be true or just reading a statistic is nowhere near enough to make me believe your arguments. Please explain the reasoning behind each step of the argument- even though there are massive time constraints in final focus, please still include it in a condensed form.

4. WEIGH. This is probably one of the most under-appreciated aspects of debate, and to become a great debater, you need to be able to compare your arguments to your opponents and explain why yours are more important to consider in the round. Just saying "We outweigh on scope because we affect more people" is not fully fleshed out weighing; you need to give more reasoning and also compare the clashing weighing mechanisms in the round. Weighing makes my job easier, and will probably lead to you being more content with my decision.

Miscellaneous:

1. PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION: Personally, I believe that a lot of progressive argumentation does not have a place in PF, and will always prefer topical arguments over Ks and theory UNLESS there is clear abuse. As for my position on some norms, I lean very strongly paraphrasing good, slightly lean towards disclosure not necessary, lean RVIs good, and default reasonability. I do not know much about this type of debate, so please slow down and explain it thoroughly if you do choose to run it in front of me, and I will treat it as any other argument. Trigger warnings are a necessity, and if I feel as though you are running this just to win an easy ballot against a team that obviously does not know how to respond, I will drop you- progressive argumentation is supposed to correct the flaws that are in this activity, NOT to be weaponized.

2. I base speaker points on your speaking skills and presentation AND on how technically sound you debate. Because of this, if the tournament allows me to, I will give a low-points win. I will start at 28.

3. Please don't be overly aggressive or mean in round; light-hearted humor is wonderful, but be wary of the line where it crosses over from being funny to disrespectful. Oh and also, please don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. That will automatically make me drop you- I have no tolerance for people who make the round an unsafe space to debate.

4. I am tech>truth, but not entirely. I will vote on any argument if it is well-warranted and well-executed in round, but as the argument becomes more outlandish, my threshold for a good response goes down and I am more likely to believe simple logical responses.

5. Please don't be egregiously poor with evidence- that just leads to really mucky debates and that would make me sad.

6. Please signpost- tell me which argument you are talking about, where in the argument you are, etc. This just makes it easier for me to flow the round.

7. Speed is fine, but don't go excessively fast (this means no spreading!!!)- if I need you to slow down then I will say "clear".

8. About crossfires- I fall in the category of people who really enjoy listening to cross, but anything important that comes out of cross that you think is necessary for me to take note of has to be put into a speech, else it will not affect my decision.

9. Please make the round enjoyable; then we can all have fun and that would make it a great time. This activity is meant to be both fun and competitive- please try to make it so.

10. ABOUT TURNS: Since everyone is turning to the idea of dumping turns on all arguments without any proper warranting, this section is now warranted. I despise blippy turns, so unless you spend >10 seconds on one turn AND extend an impact on that turn in that same speech OR weigh your turn in that very same speech that you read the turn in, I will think of it as blippy and I will be very sympathetic to the other team's responses. Other team, please point out that they are blowing up a blip. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR SECOND REBUTTAL TURNS. Tread lightly.

FOR NOVICES:

I do not expect too much from y'all; I remember when I was a novice myself I certainly would not oblige to what I have mentioned above. That being said, here is some of the clear stuff that would make the round better and make me happy:

1. Signpost in every speech- this is a good practice generally, and allows you to stay organized and me to understand what you're saying.

2. Give voters in the back half of the round- it is not enough to tell me why the opponents should not win; you need to explain why you win and why I should vote for you.

3. Warrant and Weigh- Give me the reasoning behind your evidence and why your arguments logically are sound, and then compare their importance to those of the opponents.

If y'all got through all of that, then y'all are some real ones. If you want any speaker point boosts, call the pro's contentions as PROtentions (+0.5 speaker points). Thank you for reading this- if you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts, and I will be happy to answer them. If you want to reach me, my email is gangulya@bxscience.edu

Hey all! If you have me as a judge, chances are that I'm super excited to judge your round and meet you all if I haven't already :)

A couple things about me. I debated in PF for four years at Newton South High School. I understand how a flow works and should have no problem following along with speed (if I am having trouble, I'll let you know). Second speaking teams do not have to frontline in second rebuttal unless they want to, and first speaking teams can extend dropped defensive arguments from rebuttal to final focus.

That being said, I tend to prefer arguments that I believe over speeches that are technically dazzling. I will be willing to vote off of theory, but I am also fairly skeptical regarding how important it is. If you have to use it, go for it; if you don't, probably better to not run theory. I love good warranting, and will not vote for a point if the warrant is not extended throughout the round. (Update: If I think an argument is stupid, I will also not vote for it. Convince me!) Going for fewer arguments with great explanation and weighing is probably the easiest way to win my ballot.

Oh also, putting this in here because it's a thing people are starting to do differently. I still default NEG, not first. If you want me to explain why, just ask.

Along those lines, the worst feeling in the entire world is when you lose a judge because they voted in a way that you didn't know they were going to vote. If there's anything I can answer for you before the round, please just ask.

Jacqueline Wei has a really good paradigm. Can we pretend that I just copy-and-pasted it here?

Hi! I am currently a senior at Newton South and have done PF for four years. A couple things:

1. Please don't say "just a quick off time road map." Please.

2. In rebuttal, the second speaking team should frontline turns. Not required, but I like when teams collapse in second rebuttal.

3. I don't just care that your card says something—explain to me why it says that.

4. PLEASE WEIGH! Make my decision easy by telling me why your argument is more important.

5. I can't vote for you if in your second half speeches you aren't extending a warrant and an impact (and weighing and frontlining). Please please collapse.

6. I don't like theory and will probably evaluate it wrong. Would *strongly* advise against running it.

7. Make me laugh and I'll boost your speaks:) If you are mean to your opponents, expect your speaks to reflect that.

Let me know if you have any questions! Excited to judge!

I am a parent judge.

Timing:

Please Time yourself (rounds and prep)

Speaking:

- Please speak at a reasonable pace and be clear.

- Please be courteous

1. Keep Calm.
2. Speak Loud And Clear.
3. Maintain Proper Body Language.
4. Keep The Topic On Track.
5. Respect your Opponents

I am parent judge. I have only judged a few rounds before.

I prefer when debaters are clear and avoid speaking super fast.

If you speak too fast i will not consider all your arguments in my final decision.

I value the logic behind an argument and not just the quantitative component.

Hi my name is Christian (he/him) and I am a sophomore on the Harvard CX debate team and did CX debate in high school as well.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN -cagines21@gmail.com

my experiences

I am most comfortable with K/T/Theory positions. The kritiks i know best are afropess, warren, spillers/hartman of course, however, I've encountered most of the K lit base positions and am willing to evaluate them. Overall, just be sure to explain everything well.

Overview of Args

K v Framework (i dont really default any specific way - i will buy things like impact turns, and debate bad args - but i am also convinced by solid 2nrs on framework )

LARP v LARP - im fine for this but i dont do in depth research about the political implications of the topic - largely just the kritikal ones. keep that in mind while using jargon or abbreviations.

theory/t debates writ large are fine! i dont like friv theory however.

non t affs (esp w black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them! i think these debates should be conscious about content warnings however. i expect good t-framework interactions.

my least favorite kinds of debate (pls dont make me evaluate these debates sigh)

tricks. full stop. :)

phil is a type of debate i dont know NEARLY enough about - it would be in your best interest to not go for a phil vs phil or phil vs policy round in front of me. however i know phil enough to evaluate it vs kritiks.

disclosure policies

disclosure is probably good, but i definitely air on the side of black debaters not needing to disclose their positions.

debate opinions (take them as you will)

1 - debate is not just a game. yes it is a competition, but it is also a place where POC, and black students express themselves. there are material impacts for black/POC - some of which can show themselves through trigger warnings - dont be violent.

2 - ANY form of racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, lack of trigger warnings, etc -all of which WILL get you downed with an L-20.

3 - i default to competing interps, no rvi's, DTD - the more friv the shell, the lower threshold i have to beat it back. PICs and condo are probably good.

5- PLEASE SLOW DOWN FOR QUICK ANALYTICS. i sometimes find myself missing them, esp with the nature of this tournament being online.

5 - please weigh.

6 - other things that will result in you getting the L or/and lower speaks - misgendering your opponent, stealing prep, manipulating ev, reading pess as a non black person, being rude to novices!

things i like to see/good speaks!

1 - collapsing !!

2 - judge instruction

3 -make the round fun or interesting

notes

1 - being toxic throughout the debate is a no

2 - try and have docs ready to go - just so we dont run over time tm - other than that have fun!

3 - if you want to postround - try to keep it constructive! try not to be rude.

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

Hello,

My name is Rebecca and I am newer judge. Please do not speak quickly and please do not use jargon.

Thank you.

Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison and clear signposting. Assertive, not aggressive.

Things I don't like to see: reading pieces of evidence saying the same thing combined with no analysis and strategy, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don't beat the dead horse in CX.

Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down with anything you want on my flow.

brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

My Background:

I debated PF for three years on local and national circuit.

I also did LD and Parli a couple times, am a novice in APDA, and can greatly appreciate big picture/philosophical arguments.

PFers- I don’t flow cross ex (so if it’s important mention it in your speech)

I look for a few things in a successful round:

1. Clear speaking: I believe one of the most important aspects to strong debating is developing oratorical skills. That being said, I want to see clear, concise argumentation. Additionally, although I flow all rounds, I am not a “tech judge”. I do not buy arguments said while spreading and I certainly will not extend things on the flow just because you say “extend this.”
2. Narrative building: By this I mean paralleling summary and final focus to enhance consistency and establish cohesive links around the issue you choose to crystallize. I need to know what the ramifications of what you are talking about mean in the big world AKA I want to see all your Impacts extended and clearly contextualized in the final speeches.
3. Weighing on impacts AND links: While weighing on impacts is the most intuitive portion, I really want to know why your link into the impact is more significant than your opponents link into theirs. Especially if you are impacting to the same thing, this is probably going to be the most crucial portion to my decision.

All of this said: I will not stand for sexist/racist/intolerant views in round. Please be respectful, be rational, be clear, be assertive, and enjoy yourself!

Hi, I am a parent of an avid debater, and I am a scrupulous note taker. I always read up on the topic prior to judging, but explain things to me as if I am learning about it for the first time. I have an extensive history judging on the national circuit for PF. I like teams which have good evidence to support their claims. Try to tell me a story with your arguments about why your impacts matter in the first place. Links in your logical reasoning should be clearly explained, and I won't consider your impacts unless your links make sense. Also, if it is not in summary, then it shouldn't be in final focus. During Cross-X try be as respectful of your opponents as possible, and being respectful helps your speaker points. If you're going to turn your opponent's argument, make sure there is an impact. Also last but not least, weighing during summary and final focus definitely makes it easier for me to judge your round. Look forward to judging your round!

I am a parent PF judge and am an attorney and legal consultant.

Please make your framework clear and, when necessary, address why your framework should prevail. When you clash with your opponents, I will judge your case based on how you weigh your arguments' significance relative to your opponents' arguments.

Please do not spread (or talk too quickly). Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Citations without explanations or explanations without citations are not persuasive. Please do not use debate jargon.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause. I encourage tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in cross fire.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. The final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (including why I should vote for your side by explaining why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't.)

i did 4 years of pf (2016-20)

my paradigm is essentially the same as danny's

my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to greenicamilla@gmail.com

i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of theory

I am a parent judge aligned with Regis High School in New York City. I have been judging debate for several years at some of the larger regional tournaments, states, and local tournaments, judging mainly Public Forum, rounded out with a BQ qualifier and BQ nationals. Parliamentary Debate is a new format for me.

I work in finance. I'm familiar with basic debate jargon (turn, extend, etc.) but I'm certainly not a very 'debatey' judge. For PF, off time roadmaps are welcome. Please be sure everything you say is understandable. Speed is okay but you must be clear. If I can't follow you it will be harder for me to understand connections between your contentions, warrants, and impacts or challenges to your opponent's arguments.

When time runs out, please finish your thought and stop speaking.

I will vote off the flow.

PF

I've seen these issues disproportionately in PF so I feel like I need to include them here:

Please include the links to the evidence in your cards in the citation if you are not including the entire piece of evidence in the card itself. Falsifying the original context of a piece of evidence by cutting the card to support your claim means that the claim is actually unwarranted. I will check evidence for verification of author's intent if an argument is made for discrediting evidence. If the author's intent does not support your claim, you will not gain it as offense.

Please signpost down the flow and extend evidence into every speech; extensions include the impact of a card and not just its claim or simply its author. Impact calculous is extremely important to me; convince me why your impacts outweigh your opponents'. You can even be so specific as to link your impacts to a specific value framework if you believe this will contextualize their importance. If you do so, be sure to also articulate how this framework is preferable to whatever framework your opponents' impacts default to.

LD

Run what you want, just please make sure you understand and can effectively articulate any kritical argumentation you present so I don't feel like I'm just voting for the upper hand of a better case, but instead the overall better debater. I'm fine with theory, but won't vote on the very basic theory arguments like time skew unless, obviously, you present it and it goes uncontested by your opponent. For my non-kritical debaters, you still have an equal shot at the ballot. I like seeing direct clash points in a debate, so go for topicality and/or solvency against those type of arguments.

CX

I am mainly familiar with LD-style progressive argumentation, so you're going to have to be very clear with any kritical argumentation you present. I understand CX stock debate, so you're good there, but basically just keep in mind that I was an LD debater, so present your cases to me as such please.

Hi, make funny jokes = boosted speaks

Please make your framework clear and, when necessary, address why your framework should prevail.

When you clash with your opponents, I will judge your case based on how you weigh your arguments' significance relative to your opponents' arguments.

Please do not spread. If you do, I may miss an argument or response.

Do not be obnoxious with evidence transfer. Be efficient and do not eat up time unnecessarily rushing to find pieces of evidence. By the same token, only ask for those things that are crucially necessary to your responses.

I am a new parent judge. I prefer if you speak slowly.

Lay Judge

Try not to spread as it will be hard for me to flow

No Theory - I would like to see a debate about the current resolution

Don't bring new arguments after Summary speeches

Make sure to warrant your arguments.

Be nice to the opposing team.

Make sure to weigh your arguments so I can clearly see both team's impacts.

Be respectful during the crossfire.

No preferred speaking style.

Try to send evidence asked for during crossfire in the chat after crossfire/during prep time, let's not waste time searching for cards during questions.

Provide trigger warnings for topics your fellow debaters may find sensitive.

If you're worried about time mid-sentence just complete your thought, I will stop you when I have to.

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

1. Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
2. Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
3. Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
4. Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
5. Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

1. Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
2. Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
3. Be rude (-.5 point)
4. Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
5. Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

Hey there! Please feel free to ask me about my philosophy before round.

email: david.bo.hansen@gmail.com

Experience

Competitor

2 years - Community College NPDA/IE's
3 years - National Circuit NPDA/NPTE

Coach
2 years - Asian Parliamentary Debate/Public Forum
2 years - NPDA/NPTE
Some BP

My preferred pronouns are he/him/his.

Public Forum Notes

Do you have any strong predispositions for or against any particular arguments? If so, what?

I am open to any kind of argument as long as it is well warranted and reasoned. As a debater and coach, I have worked with all kinds of arguments and tend to think that debaters should read the arguments that they are the most personally compelled by.

What is your stance on student delivery? Should debaters be fast or slow?

I have no strong predisposition for or against speed. I just ask that all debaters are able to comprehend the debate round.

Do you call for evidence in debate rounds? What do you look for?

I call for evidence if there is a dispute on interpretation, but I tend to defer to debaters' interpretation.

What do you tend to think the most important questions in a debate are?

How should the judge decide who wins? Which arguments matter most? Why does my evidence support my claim? I find more specific arguments more persuasive.

I am not prejudiced strongly for or against kritikal arguments.

I tend to think providing a framework for the round is important.

Policy/Parli

General Notes

Specificity wins debates.

(Parli) Interpretations and advocacies should at least be read twice and slowly. Ideally you provide the judge(s) and competitors with a copy.

I tend to believe that the way we discuss the world has real impacts outside of the debate round.

If debaters are debating ethically, I tend to believe that framework arguments are more persuasive than the arguments against it. However, I will vote based on how the debate plays out. If you win that defending the topic is bad and you reject the topic, you will likely win the debate.

An argument without a warrant isn’t an argument.

I tend to believe that recording, sharing, and watching rounds is good for debate.

Theory and Framework

I love a great theory or framework shell. I am happy to vote here. I think a great shell isn't the right buzzwords, it's a specific articulation of how behavior implicates debate as a game.

Counter Plans

I’m uncertain about conditionality. I am sympathetic to arguments about the 2AC/MG being key and difficult. However, I also believe the negative should have some flexibility. The community goes back and forth on condo and I do too. Feel free to run your shell. Feel free to be conditional. I will vote depending on how condo plays out.

PIC’s are usually abusive in NPDA debate, but often strategic and occasionally justified – especially if the topic provides aff flex.

Delay is almost always bad, so are process CP’s.

Kritiks

These are fine. I read them a lot, and went for them occasionally. Please provide early thesis-level analysis. I think most K shells I’ve seen are incredibly inefficient and vulnerable to impact turns. Teams should likely cut major portions of their FW page and instead develop solvency and internal links to the case.

2A/MG’s should be more willing to go hard right (or left) to answer K’s. The aff probably links to Cap, but there is SUBSTANTIAL lit in favor of cap.

K/Critical affs

Can be amazing. However, they are easy to do inefficiently and hard to do well. An aff that is rejecting the motion needs to justify why: 1. Your thing matters more than the topic 2. Why you can’t discuss your thing on this topic OR 3. Why your thing is a prior question to the topic.

On the neg, you need to prove that you are an opportunity cost to the aff. Maybe it’s as simple as you need to keep debating, but you need a reason.

Hi! I am a fourth-year debater so I like to think I’m a flow judge but honestly, I might have a mid-round identity crisis and just become a lay judge. (proceed with caution)

Please time yourselves. Speaking of time, it’s time for my daily rant on cards in debate...I don't care about where you got your evidence from because you can find someone on the internet to say anything. I prefer logically warranted arguments, so don't have a card-heavy summary. Along with this, saying that someone misconstrued their evidence is not enough to rebut their point. I will still flow it through if they can give a logical explanation for why something would happen. Also, I would prefer paraphrasing for card extensions in latter half speeches (just don’t repeat the words of the Brookings Institute. I know, I know, we all love the Brookings Institute so this might hurt at first but I’m sure you can manage, as I have gone years without having a card that wasn’t misconstrued in one way or another by my own paraphrasing). Okayyy rant over, now more basic stuff.

I don't flow cross but I will be listening. Don't be mean, please frontline in second rebuttal. To win the round, you have to weigh. Saying buzzwords is not weighing if you don't warrant it. Tell me why you have won the round and why your impacts or links are better than your opponents’.

That's all. If you have any questions feel free to ask me in round.

Hiii, I'm Rozey and I am currently in APDA at Wellesley College but I truly appreciate all debate styles & their quirks! I have experience judging in APDA, PF, and Congress. That being said please feel free to message me for feedback or for absolutely anything! :~)

More on Experience

I have debated and judged on the APDA team at Wellesley College for two years. Alongside this, I have judged multiple in-person and online tournaments in the APDA, Public Forum, Congress, and Lincoln-Douglas styles. I also judge through Hired Judge & have additional experience through that platform.

Speed

Please, please take into account that I don't appreciate speed, I can flow it but! I would much rather completely hear and process the entirety of your argument rather than only capturing a few points.

Weighing

Hot tip: weigh! Weighing is so helpful for me as a judge in evaluating because this the point of the debate, to show which side of the debate/house is going to have the most impact. I can assure that someone who weighs, especially in their closing, is going to receive higher speaks simply because I understand their argument.

Also, provide me with some ~spice~ in your speeches! A little humor never hurt anyone!

Parent judge here. Lay judge.

Speak slowly and clearly--I would prefer good presentation as well. Just be persuasive.

Signpost--It makes it easier to follow.

Logical arguments--these make a lot more sense than a big card dump, and I'm more likely to understand it.

Weigh--makes it clear to me who's winning

Don't be rude or offensive.

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

FOR PF:

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Please no spreading
3. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
4. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
5. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
6. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

FOR LD:

1. I prefer traditional LD
2. Please no spreading
3. Please don't read Ks or theory
4. I prefer warranting > evidence

I have been coaching public forum at Shrewsbury High (MA) since 2014, and am now the head coach there. Please note that Shrewsbury PFers have been instructed not to send their cases to their opponents or their judges. They also will not partake in Theory or K debates since they have no place in Public Forum Debate. They will be debating the resolution as is the entire goal of PF debate.

I have a lot of experience judging, but have also been in the tabroom a lot recently. I believe in the values of public forum debate, meaning that the debate should be able to be adjudicated by a citizen judge. I will flow, but I'm looking for clear signposting and a clear structure to each speech. This is just good practice.

I love a good narrative, but not at the expense of solid evidence and impacts.

I want logically sound warrants, please don't just say that my card is from 2023 when theirs is from 2021...I want a real reason for why your evidence is better in relation to your contentions.

Please give me clash and weighable impacts. But please don't just say you outweigh on scope or magnitude without telling me why.

I really don't want to call for evidence, so please don't use false figures or try anything dodgy. This includes things like, "our opponents didn't respond..." when they clearly did respond.

I will not judge based on any plans, counterplans or critical theories. That is simply not in the spirit of public forum debate.

I don't like roadmaps. Your speech should be clear enough for me to follow without one and it's a problem if you need one, and although I'll probably let you give it, I won't be listening to it.

Don't be rude. This includes good etiquette in crossfire. Condescension will make me look for a way to give you the loss.

I do really like cases I haven't heard before. Just be careful though, the reason they're new is that there's usually an issue with them! That's the fun of all this right!?

Parent judge with little judging experience, please don't spread and don't exaggerate on impacts :)

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

Hello, I did pubic forum debate for 4 years at Lincoln Sudbury High School. I am now a fourth year student at NYU who has judged a little here in there in college. I have a very standard circuit pf paradigm (if you don't know what that means, ask). I don't mind some speed as long as it is clear. Please ask me any other questions before the round. Please have a fun and relaxed round, thank you!

The most important thing to me is that a warrant gets extending through final focus. Otherwise I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU!

I usually won't know the topic well so make sure to explain anything topic specific but I would like to think I have a pretty decent understanding of international politics and basic, debate relevant, economics.

Keep track of your own prep time and if you care, your opponents prep time, because I will not be timing either.

If you are gonna run theory or Ks, ask your opponent before the round if they are ok with it. I don't really like those argument styles but I'll vote for them if they are cleanly won.

:)

My email is bsh298@nyu.edu if there is any questions after a round or anything else (hopefully no death threats).

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

This is my 4th year as a parent judge. I do flow the rounds.

Speak clearly and reasonably paced. Extend arguments in your speeches. If opponent concedes, do call it out for me to count it

All the best!

-Paradigm for Ash-

updated February 18th, 2022

-Background-

As a competitive debater, judge and coach of 8 years, I have experience with:

British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, Australian Parliamentary, Public Forum, World Schools. I prioritize clear mechanization in case above all else. Explain your links/ mechs and give as much context as you can.

> Off Time Roadmaps are encouraged

> You do not need to make any kind of eye contact

> I may be asking for cards

> I do flow cross fire

>I prioritize substantive rebuttal over metadebate/ tech responses.

> I do not require friendly introductions

> Using your opponents name or speaker position is fine, avoid referring to your opponents in the third person (gendered pronouns are messy!). This includes me. You can refer to me as judge, chair, panel- but do not refer to me as Madame Speaker. I will not reduce any speaker points for this, I'm just not personally comfortable with this.

> I may give low point wins.

On Theory, I value theory to be limited to a K or a potential a priori lens, akin to a model or critique. Theory is a priori, but does not proceed the value of case. It merely is a lens for me to view and understand case, rebuttal, and the rest of the debate. Run theory alongside contentions with arguments.

On Prog, contentions should. a) identify structural inequality, b) explain how it manifests vis-a-vis the debated topic, and c) how policy change meaningfully deconstructs and combats structural inequality in this instance. To merely recognize it is not enough in providing solvency against pillars of institutuionalized violence. If conditions b and c are not met, I will not count this as a Prog case.

TLDR: I am not a tech judge. Spending the second half of a PF round using condensed referential metadebate on tech is a waste of time with me. Comparative analysis should use reference to substance and not floating PF norms as I do not adhere to or even agree to all of these 'norms'. Norms can be made up by students on the fly to their advantage on unsuspecting judges, or be norms in some schools and regions and not others. Debate is not fun when you want to make up rules on the fly in order to gatekeep wins/loses. Just convince me. That's what this sport is about- persuasion- not hidden rules. I don't adhere to any norm you could throw at me in speech. Most judges don't. Most judges in JV don't know what you are talking about. Debate is a worse sport for meta-debate/ tech prioritization.

Please avoid appealing to dogwhistling and overly euphemistic language that demonizes groups of people or other ideological camps.

I openly welcome argumenation or sourcing that may use Marxist critical theory, Libertarian, Socially Conservative, Neoliberal, logic and understandings. Please do not assume my politics or preferences simply based on my education, appearance, gender, or age and try to appeal to them. I find this practice uncomfortable.

GG!

I will deduct speaker points for:

> -.5 speak for: "Good morning/ Good afternoon/ Good evening" as an introduction.

Hey guys! Really excited to be judging you this round. I have a background in debating American/British Parliamentary and Extemp Policy, and I've coached World Schools and Public Forum extensively. A few brief things to know about my judging style:

1. I'm okay with people speaking moderately quickly, meaning 1.5-2x conversational speed. If you are spreading too quickly for me to flow, I will use the policy norm of saying "clear" and expect you to slow down after that.

2. Weigh. Impact. Otherwise, I will evaluate the importance of your arguments for you, and 50% of the time it won't be in the way you want me to.

3. Even if you're in a research-based format, give some logic to back up your evidence. You will not win based on a single, unsupported statistic or quote from some old guy.

4. All POIs/crossfire must be incorporated into later speeches in order for me to count it as substantive. Explain to me why the answer you got from your opponents matters in the context of the round.

5. I do not vote off of theory. The one exception to this is trigger warning theory. Include a content warning if you are going to discuss distressing topics (e.g. sexual violence).

Harvard 2022 Update: I used to tell debaters that I liked KitKats so they could gain my favor. Due to the inability to deliver snacks online, I'll mention instead that I'll like you infinitely more if you mention Bulgaria in your speech :)

This is my first time judging any tournament and my first time encountering public forum debate. First and foremost, although I have been speaking english for years, it is my second language so please speak SLOWLY––I cannot emphasize that enough. Slow. Secondly, just assume I know nothing about the topic and explain your arguments thoroughly. Doing these two points will only help me understand your arguments better, which makes it more likely I'll vote for you. I recommend you collapse your arguments so you have time to explain them and make it really clear why they're most important. Please avoid debate jargon because chances are I'm not going to know what you mean. And finally, please be polite and respectful to your opponents and remember to have fun!

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

*paradigm finessed from Ryan Zhu*

- PF debater from Edina JW, have competed nationally and locally.

If you wish to have any accommodations to make the debate safer/better or have any extra questions after reading the paradigm, contact me on Facebook Messenger or at evanjiang943@gmail.com

put me on the email chain if there is one: (email above)

tl:dr - tech > truth judge - tabula rasa. I'll flow the entire round, debate how you want - line by line/big picture idc. Everything in FF should be in summary.

- ay have fun! crack jokes - itll make the whole debate more fun and enjoyable

- i'll disclose the decision - if you think i messed up, roast me all you want, post round me, ask questions, idrc but don't be a dick.

speed: i can keep up and flow anywhere up to 300wpm. send a speech doc to me if you're gonna spread and make sure you aren't excluding your opponents.

weighing: pls pls weigh! weighing is the easiest way to win the round and structures how i view the debate. GIVE ME A REASON WHY TO PREFER YOUR ARGUMENT/LINK/IMPACT OVER YOUR OPPONENTS.

second rebuttal: second rebuttal should frontline at the least turns, but prolly defense also. split however you want (ie 2/2 or 3/1).

first summary: unfrontlined defense is sticky for first summary and can go from rebuttal to final focus. if it is frontlined, still need to extend it. turns should always be in summary.

theory: i'm good with most theory arguments as long as there is a real violation, like the other team not reading a content warning for a potentially triggering argument. i'm not gonna vote on friv theory (shoe theory, disclosure, paraphrase) tbh. paragraph theory is fine if you don't know how to write the full shell.

Ks: these are prolly fine if you want to run the argument, but slow down and explain it rly well. i won't know the lit base but I'll listen to the arg and know how they work.

tricks: no.

speaks: Average ~ 28.5 and go up/down the 0.1 scale from that. strategic decisions and collapsing earn a bump. i'm not gonna evaluate 30s theory tho.

evidence: cut cards are a must - whether you read those cut cards verbatim or paraphrase them is up to you. If anyone calls for ev, pls be able to give them the card promptly.

don't do these:

If you make an offensive comment (ex: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), you will get the L and lowest possible speaks. Debate should be inclusive and safe for people.

offensive overviews: don't pull out a new contention in rebuttal, i'm not going to vote for an unrelated DA out of second rebuttal, and i don't think that reading a new contention level arg in first rebuttal is strategic.

dumping unwarranted args: don't read as many arguments as you can if it means sacrificing the warranting and explanation. that being said, i'm fine with any crazy arguments as long as there are warrants and implications. quality > quantity plz.

Hi y'all! I'm a second-year out who debated (well tried to) at Newton South for four years.

I'm flow enough, but extremely high speed or techiness is past my pay grade. "Uniqueness determines the direction of a link" or something is a term I never got while debating, and you'd have to really explain it to me now.

New arguments will be thrown out in summary and any new points are thrown out in final focus (if you're the other team, please shake your head vigorously and look incredulous to help me notice that it's new).

If some evidence is wack, let me know and I'll look at it. Bad evidence may drop speaks and make me throw out the point.

Uncontested defense flows through first summary. I've forgotten all the other rules of PF, so if you want any clarification just ask.

Please signpost! I've realized that in my old age my listening comprehension has deteriorated. Without really clear signposting any kind of speed is wasted on me.

Please weigh! But good weighing. It needs to be warranted, it's better if it's comparative, and I would appreciate link weighing as well. If both sides weigh but don't say why your weighing analysis is better, we're back to square one. This is a really easy way to win the round. Without weighing, I prioritize links over impacts.

Calmness: this is a really fun tournament! Enjoying the act of debating is hard when things get tense, but it makes everyone's day better.

Ask actual questions in cross! I usually don't evaluate cross, but I will poorly evaluate "I'm right, do you agree" or "You're wrong, do you have a response?"

It's really important to read paradigms so I'll give you 0.5 speaker points just by telling me you read my paradigm.

Good luck!

Used to do PF in high school, I now judge and coach sometimes.

Standard tabula rasa judge

Strategy and analysis are the most important factors for me: Please do comparative weighing and explanations between your arguments and your opponents - this is where I end up voting 90% of the time.

If you have any questions about my judging preferences or requests to make the round more accessible, please let me know. Thanks and I look forward to judging you!

Hi! I’m writing this for my dad (who doesn’t believe in paradigms). A couple things you should know:

He’s a parent. Treat him as such; you know what to do.

He’s a professor who gets paid to evaluate students. You’re debating in front of someone who definitely can tell a good and bad link chain apart.

He says he understands speaking quickly. However, he doesn’t think that fast speech is persuasive. I wouldn’t go fast, and definitely not spread.

He doesn’t know any debate jargon. Use at your own risk.

He is a historian, and knows a lot of history. Same for public health -- be careful that what you run would be accepted by an academic in the field.

Be polite & fairly formal. He just spent 15 minutes complaining to me about informal paradigms.

He wants debate to be fun. I'd recommend smiling.

He doesn't believe in off-time road maps. He says that he has never seen them in the rulebooks, and that debaters simply say "first I will rebut the opponent's case, then I will make our case" -- which isn't either surprising or helpful.

Overall, debate like you would in front of a teacher ready to edit your case. Good luck and good debating!

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

Hey, I am relatively new to judging.
Please speak at a normal pace, I cannot keep up with people who speak too fast.
Good luck :)

I am a lay judge and this is my first year of judging. I flow the rounds, and I generally have some background knowledge on the topic, but please treat the round as if I do not because I may not know what you are talking about.

What I look for in a round regarding any debate style:

1. Speaking Speed: Please go at a moderate speed. I don’t want to have to judge a round where I am barely able to flow because of the speed the round is going at. I also want to make sure that both I and your opponents are able to understand your contentions. It’s very time-consuming in crossfires to ask for a summary of your contention(s).

2. Timing: Please make good use of your time. I would appreciate it if you time yourself. I will be timing, but I think as debaters you need to develop the habit of timing yourself.

3. Attitude: Please be respectful. I will not tolerate inappropriate language, interruptions, etc., and it would be in your best interest to avoid this. I will dock speaker points if anyone is rude.

4. Crossfires: In your crossfires, allow your opponents to respond completely and don’t interrupt anyone. Also, please have your cards handy in case your opponents call for a card. It would save a lot of time.

5. Cherry Picking: Please don’t take a single example and generalize it to the overarching idea. I’ve judged rounds where debaters have done this - for instance, on the PF NSA surveillance topic the privacy vs. security argument - and it’s very messy and hard to judge.

6. Prep Time: Please don’t take any prep time before your crossfires. I’ll be glad to give it to you any other time, like before rebuttal, summary speech, etc., but I discourage taking any before a crossfire. I am okay with taking either running or set prep.

7. Technical Difficulties: I like starting as soon as possible, and it would be greatly appreciated if you can resolve any tech issues with your partner/on your own before entering a round.

Speaker Points: I’ll be basing your speaker points on your speed, style, timing, attitude, crossfires, and, of course, the actual content of your speeches.

Clarify any questions you have for me beforehand.

I look forward to judging a clean and interesting round.

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

1. Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
2. Win the flow=win the round
3. Presumption =neg
4. Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
5. K debate is even better
6. Defense needs to be extended
7. I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
8. You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.

PF

- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.

- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.

- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.

- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.

- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.

- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts

- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.

- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.

- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.

- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.

-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style

-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.

-If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.

LD

- All of the above applies here as well. There are a few extra points that may be helpful.

- I will always evaluate framing first, so long as there are competing positions. If values are the same, just collapse and move on. These can be either traditional or more progressive/kritical frameworks.

- For the NR/2AR, don't go for everything- there simply is not enough time and debates are not lost by making strategic decisions to go for one or two arguments instead of extending the entire case.

- I dont need voter issues- just go top down the AC and NC and win your offense/extend defense.

- Impact calc is necessary- PLEASE weigh your impacts. I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round.

I am a parent/lay judge. I appreciate clarity over speed, as well as respectful disagreement. I expect you to synthesize and apply your research, not simply provide citations.

I am a flow parent/lay judge who prefers clarity over speed.

Please avoid spreading so that I do not miss an argument or response.

I appreciate respectful disagreement and appreciate when you are being directly comparative with your opponent's arguments to demonstrate how you are winning the round.

Keep the impacts realistic. It will be easier to vote for you if the case seems both practical and plausible.

I expect the debaters to present evidence in their arguments and will only look at it if there is a conflict.

I am not particularly supportive of theory arguments and would prefer you stick to the topic at hand.

Although an experienced PF judge, I am also an LD judge.

Hello, my name is Anchal!

I was a policy debater in HS and I am currently an LD/PF coach.

Treat me as a flay judge.

If you are sharing evidence you can add me @ anchal.kanojia@ahschool.com If you call out a card or would like me to look at evidence- make that evident in your speech.

For prep and your speeches time yourselves and your opponents. For speeches I usually keep a timer and I don't flow anything after my timer goes off.

Don't use debate jargon in place of explaining args.

Tech>>Truth

I'm cool with speed but your opponents should be comfortable with your pace. Always be polite and respectful.

For PF

It's a public forum- I'm not a fan of theory, unless there's actual in round abuse. Running disclosure theory against a novice team is abusive. Frameworks are fine.

WARRANTING - please explain your arguments. Do not say "extend this" without explaining why. And please refrain from claiming that you already proved something earlier on without explaining what you did.

As a strat- give me voters and essentially write out my ballot.

For LD

Theory, Ks, etc. are totally fine.

I'm a fan of Ks and cool frameworks :)

Hello,

My name is Atul Kapoor. I am a lay judge with a solid amount of judging experience. Please explain your arguments clearly, and speak at a pace with emphasis on quality of your argument rather than quantity. Do not spread and do not overload your speech with debate jargon. I will do my best to judge only off what I am given in the round, so please do the work for me and don't make me have to intervene. Please add me to the email chain at kapoor.atul@gmail.com.

I don't base my judgment on your crossfire, so please don't use it to persuade me. Crossfire is for you to understand your opponent's case and address it in your next speeches. Pretend I'm not listening during crossfire. Make your case in the next speech.

If you're presenting an extinction argument, make sure it's believable. For instance, arguing that affirming or negating healthcare for all could lead to nuclear war and extinction seems far-fetched. If your opponents present an extension argument that seems implausible, address it. It shouldn't only be me thinking it's not plausible.

I assess your speaker points based on clarity, articulation, appropriate speed, and eye contact. Sometimes, I may give low scores.

I will do my best to disclose my decision when I am allowed to, and will leave feedback on the ballot. Above all, remember to have fun and be respectful to your opponents!

Best of luck!

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: pkasibhatla4@gmail.com

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrued the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

Hi! I am Rahat Khan and I have started debating with Asian Parliamentry and British Parlimentry debating. After gathering experiences, the thing that remained constant all the time is debate always appears to me like a window where I can see the world from different perspectives in a very short time. I have judged AP and BP debates before and I am familiar with Public Forum Debate as well. Good luck!

Salah Khan

This is my first time being a debate judge and considering the topic, I do have some background knowledge regarding this topic since I am a medical student.

Tips:

Please do not rush and talk slowly and clearly for me to understand.

I would like you to spend time and explain evidence validity and where it was found. I believe the location of where you get the evidence is important and makes for a strong argument.

Be consistent with your information and claims. I want to be able to follow through with your argument and be able to understand the main premise of what your claims are based on.

When it comes time to crossfire I would like to see who ask questions that show weakness in the opponent's claims but I would love to see what the response to the weakness is.

Please conclude in a manner that wraps up your claims in a concise manner. bonus to those that strengthen it after weaknesses is dealt with.

if you are rude to your opponents, i will dock speaks.

Hi!

I'm a lay judge, so please slow down on your speeches especially the rebuttal speeches. Please don't be rude and enjoy debating!

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 have been judging debate since high school, and have judged outrounds at a number of tournaments. I favour substance over style as I believe that rewarding style disadvantages ESL competitors, and I encourage all debaters to engage with other teams. I judge hollistically and tend not to be too picky about the organization of speeches, provided that they are clear and logical. I encourage debaters to structure their speeches in the way that they feel will best present their arguments.

This is my fifth year judging PFD. I did not debate in high school or college, so I try to approach PFD as a "citizen judge." When I listen to a debate, I track a lot of factors. The three most important factors are: 1) citing information sources and demonstrating that you performed solid research and know your topic, 2) expressing a clear set of contentions and subpoints, 3) and how well you listen to your opponents and attack their argument.

In terms of delivery, I favor slow or medium pace and clear, well developed arguments.

Finally, it is important that each team respects its opponents. I understand that debates can get exciting, but I do not like to see opponents interrupting or talking over each other too much in crossfire. Good luck today.

I like to see off time road maps so that it’s easier for me to follow your line of thinking/argument.

I also prefer if the case is laid out as a) contention, b) supporting points, c) impact. Helps me if impact is clearly articulated.

Speak clearly and not hurried.

Please show courtesy and politeness as you debate.

Pls talk slowly that's all I ask, makes for a better RFD. Not too familiar with PF, mainly do APDA stuff. Lay judge.

I am new to judging

I'm relatively new to judging, so I'd recommend being clear about your main points and emphasis on the impact of your argument(s).

Please try to not speak 'too' fast. Fast and clear pronunciations are preferred.

Speak slowly and clearly so I can understand your arguments; if I don't understand them, I cannot vote for you. Use only realistic arguments.

It's helpful when you frontline and give implications in your speeches. Make sure to weigh in summary and final focus with consistency.

Do not run theory or any type of progressive arguments.

Be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to listening to your round!

***For any email chain: mk2588@cornell.edu

About Me

I'm a third-year out and I've done speech and debate for around five years, though I more competitively debated in the circuit in the United States for around three years.

My main event was PF, but I've also competed in World Schools and a few other events. I've helped out some teams here and there in the past and judged at a number of tournaments so it's not like I've forgotten everything, but I've been a bit out of touch so keep that in mind.

PF Paradigm

I consider myself to be a flow judge, but I'm not going to nitpick about every single thing on the flow. What I ultimately care about is your offense and your team's narrative at the end of the round (be clear).

Don't assume that I'm heavily informed about the topic so if the other side is clearly misrepresenting information or evidence, make sure to be clear about it. If there's any evidence that the other team continues to call you out on, I will most likely call for it at the end of the round (though I typically prefer not to call for any evidence).

I care a lot about the link chain so if something doesn't add up in your later speeches in the round that can severely hurt your chances of winning the round.

Normally, I don't really write anything during cross. If there's something that you do want me to take note of from cross, tell me in your next speech.

if you want to talk about something in FF, make sure it's in your summary (pretty simple).

Speed-wise I can normally keep up, but don't go crazy.

Obviously you need to weigh. If you don't tell me what and why a point is more important than what your opponents said it's going to be tough for me to make a decision.

I will NOT tolerate any rude behavior during the round, it'll be reflected in your speaker points. Just don't be a jerk.

Honestly, if you have any specific questions just ask me before the round starts.

If you have any questions or need any clarifications after the round you can reach me at mk2588@cornell.edu.

I do American and British Parliamentary on the Harvard team but have no familiarity with any other formats so you may want to treat me as a lay judge.

I will not (generally) read any cards and will not flow crossfire. If something important comes up, you must mention it during a speech for me to vote on it. I will only check a card if someone points out to me in-round that the card has been misrepresented.

Talking slightly fast is fine but if you spread, I will not follow your arguments well.

You must be respectful during the debate, I will tank your speaks if you make problematic arguments or disrespect others in the room.

FOR LD:

I prefer traditional LD. No Ks or theory.

Tech > truth but if you can explain why your opponent has made a very unlikely argument or has not illustrated a feasible link chain, I will probably be quite receptive to that rebuttal. Likewise, if you can explain why your argument is most reasonable and probable, I will be happy.

FOR PF:

I am probably biased in favor of the most reasonable sounding team in the round. I tend to dislike arguments where the impacts are massively overblown (e.g. world-ending extinction events) unless you've warranted them really well or given me some good weighing as to why I should prioritize magnitude over likelihood.

I care about warrants more than evidence. I also like to hear explicit weighing.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and use common terms. Also, avoid talking over your opponents.

About me: (He/Him Pronouns) second-year law student at UW. I debated PF for 3 years on local and national circuits. I coached for 4 years after I graduated

If you have questions about the round or my RFD, just email me at: rjl2000@uw.edu Or, text me at 253-683-1929

About round: SHOW UP TO THE ROUND ASAP AND I WILL BE HAPPY AND MORE LIKELY TO GIVE GOOD SPEAKS

speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Please do not full on spread though it's annoying.

I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If you want to bring something up in final focus, it should be extended in summary as well.

If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.

Throughout the round, confidence, humor, and aggression are good, while rudeness, bigotry, and general meanness are not. If you think that your attempt at the first category will be interpreted as the second category, error on the side of caution.

SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.

I would prefer no theory/progressive argumentation. If you do decide to run something like that, it better be very important and not just an attempt to get an easy W over people that don't know what's going on.

Specific speech stuff: This is what I would LIKE to see in a high-quality round. Do your best to do these things, but I obviously don't expect all of this from novice debaters.

For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet. This goes for both rebuttals, but numbering your responses if there are multiple will help me stay organized on the flow

For 2nd rebuttal: Frontline!!!! if you don't mention the main arguments against your case, it'll probably be considered dropped.

Summary: Same thing as second rebuttal in the sense you should be bringing up the main arguments from the previous speech and refuting them. Anything that you don't want your opponent to be able to say "They dropped our __ in summary" should be mentioned

if you want to bring up something in FF, it must be brought up in summary

Collapsing is a good way to ensure you are able to extend all the defense you need and still get offense.

FF: Voters! tell me where to vote! extend some defense if you want, but this speech should mostly be about the places you are winning on the flow and why

weighing is also good

Things that are bad and you should not do:

CALL FOR EVIDENCE/TAKE PREP BEFORE BOTH TEAMS HAVE READ THEIR CASES1! (ex: taking prep as second speaking team before you read your case) super abusive, try-hard, and annoying. If you do this, the max speaker points you can earn is 26. (yes that is arbitrary, too bad.)

Do that really annoying thing that happens in debate where you just keep restating your argument and then saying that refutes your opponents' argument. In rebuttal, your arguments should have warrents. In later speeches, you should explain to me WHY your argument is better than theirs.

Not signpost

overall, i'm experienced so do whatever you want, just do it well.

if you have any further questions please ask.

I am a parent judge. I don't have any personal debate nor coaching experience. The fundamentals of your argument is the most important to me. I appreciate clarity and structure in speech so please speak in reasonable speed, and I don't understand debate jargons. Poise is important as I value communications in a civil and educated manner. I appreciate the opportunity to go on an intellectual ride with you and your components, so please speak clearly, be civil, and most importantly show me your ability to think critically.

Hi! I did PF for 4 years in high school. I graduated from high school in 2017 and I do parli now at Harvard.

Notes

- I haven't prepped the topic. Please explain things

- I try to only vote off of offense that's in final focus and summary. This is to encourage you to collapse on arguments and weigh

- I don't care if you have a card for something if you can explain why it's logically true

- I love warrants. Please don't justify something by just saying its "empirically true"

- I'm rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round

- I don't flow cross

I debated PF at Stuyvesant High School for 4 years.

Update for Harvard Tournament: i am old now. please do not speak fast because i truly will not be able to follow it. please disregard everything below. a slow, logical, and captivating speech delivery will surely convince me.

Speech-docs & questions about the decision should be emailed to: jeremylee@college.harvard.edu.

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning. Give a phone number for participants to anonymously report any concerns, and if there are any, you must have an alternative case ready to read.

TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge. I will evaluate rounds with a technical standard, but I dislike fast, blippy "tech" debate. As tech as I try to be, your persuasive ability will inevitably skew me one way or another, so please don't throw away presentational skills for the sake of spewing jargon. Every argument needs a clearly-explained warrant for me to consider it. I will vote for the team with the least mitigated link to the greatest impact.

Technicalities

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. Use it for your own benefit to clarify arguments.

- First summary doesn't need defense.

- I care little about numbers and number comparisons in weighing. Most of the time, impact quantifications in PF are over exaggerated because impacts that happen on margins are extremely difficult if not impossible to quantify.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't, I won't know whether to evaluate your response or your opponents' case first. This means I can still vote for a team with a dropped turn on their flow.)

- Compare your weighing to your opponents. If this is not done, know that I weigh primarily on the link level because I think it is the key factor in determining the marginality of your impact (or if it happens at all). If you don’t want an unexpected decision, do the weighing yourself. Side-note: Link ins don’t count as weighing unless you show that your link is stronger than theirs.

- It is my belief that weighing fundamentally comes down to two things: how large your impact is and how probable your impact is. I take both things into account so if you weigh on probability and your opponent weighs on magnitude (and you both don't interact with each other's weighing), I will intervene to determine which argument is more important.

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- Paragraph theory is good with me and is probably more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.]

- No CPs or Ks.

- Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- No offensive OVs in second rebuttal. I just won't vote on it

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. You need to always link the argument back to the resolution and draw it out to an impact. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. I have a relatively high threshold for what counts as a clear extension because it is essential for transparent collapsing.

- Please don't use the abusive strategy of kicking out of all of your opponent's responses to your case just to read a new link to your impact. If your opponents do this, call them out for it in speech.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round.

Etiquette (how to get high speaks)

- Don't spread. I flow on my computer, so I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is bad for the activity. It excludes so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, speaking over your opponent in cross, and making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

Evidence

- Please don't call for every piece of evidence your opponents read. I understand if you think the card is super important to win the round, but in 99% of rounds, I do not even consider evidence in my decision. I instead look at logic and argument quality, so call for evidence sparingly.

- I think evidence is overrated and warrants matter much more. This means you need to attach warrants to evidence and also should discourage the misconstruction of evidence. Your insane card won't win you the round. Read your evidence ethically and then explain its role in the round.

(Guide) Warranted analytics + evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > assertions.

- At the minimum, last name and year

- I am fairly lenient with paraphrased cards because I understand that when all evidence is taken word for word from the source, word economy suffers and many debaters resort to speaking faster. However, this is on the condition that evidence is NOT misconstrued. If you are to paraphrase evidence, make sure to fully understand the source and maintain the source's intention; do NOT paraphrase evidence for the sake of getting it to say what you want it to say.

- I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round.

- To discourage cheating, if you blatantly misrepresent evidence, I will drop the entire arg/contention.

Misc.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Feel free to ask questions about the decision after the round. I won't feel offended if you disagree with my decision, and I am happy to discuss it after the round.

If you have any other questions, ask before the round.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

PF

I will not flow any theory/topicality, plans/CP's. I'm okay with speed, but as this is PF I don't want you to spread. I love impact debate and good clash, as with any debate, and signposting is important. This event has had problems with academic honesty and if you are caught in round lying about a piece of evidence then I cannot vote for that specific argument and will dock your speaks. Please include the links in your cards. I will be checking cards, especially ones that define your impact, if you have cut a card to change the intent of the author I will no longer flow that card and you will lose that impact. When extending ensure to extend the whole impact of your card, these impacts should be weighted using an impact calculus.

LD

I love good clash and evidence-based argumentation. Be nice, this is a debate, not a fight. The more in-depth explanation the better I want to have a well-rounded understanding of what I'm voting for. Keep in mind I don't want to have to do the work for you, it's your job as the debater to tell me how to vote.No more than 3 off, I think LD should be about in-depth argumentation and not attempting a time suck on your opponents.

Speaks

I'm okay with spreading so long as you're clear, I will only say "clear" once and if I am still unable to understand you then I will cease flowing.

Plans/Cp's/DA's

Detail is important and explanation of links and real-world implementation. Please don't run a CP if the Aff isn't running a Plan, also I need framing to vote on a DA with an Aff with no Plan.

Theory

I have the smallest threshold for Theory, I really need in-round abuse and impact for me to vote for Theory, running three theory shells to overwhelm your opponent then dropping them in the last speech will be counted against you if your opponent points this out. I won't vote on disclosure Theory.

Kritiks

The basic Kritiks, i.e. Biopower, Neolib, etc, I understand, but I still want an explanation and an alt. if you're going to run something abstract, please make sure that you paint a clear picture of the world the Kritik encompasses and how the alt is achievable.

Hello, my name is Andrew and I debated 4 years of PF in HS. My greatest career accomplishment is finalling the competitive Big Questions Debate Event at the prestigious March Merryness Invitiational Tournament.

I'll evaluate based on the flow and am tech > truth. 1st summary only needs defense if 2nd rebuttal frontlined. I'm good with speed, but don't spread. Weigh and I'll be very happy :) Make sure to make comparatives when you weigh!

I like if you run a cool argument, do something cool in summary, go for turns well, and/or metaweigh.

If you have questions please ask me before round!

Hi, I am Frank, and I am a parent judge.

Here are some key points for my judgement:

1. My votes count on how thoroughly you persuade me.

2. Keep the flow organized.

3. Balance your speed and clarity, do not spread.

4. Act professionally.

5. I have zero tolerance for hate speech.

Other than that, have fun.

I have never judged World Schools before. Ignore everything below

---

Auto 30s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires and prep time. Auto 29s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires, or if you offer + the other team refuses. Otherwise I cap speaks at 28. If you want lots of time to write your speech, do policy.

I have a short attention span. Don't make the round unnecessarily long, or I will be in a bad mood.

---

I debated for hunter college hs ('20) in nyc and broke at toc. I coached bronx science ('20-'21) and do some apda at harvard ('24).

1. All 1st rebuttal to 1ff extensions are fine, including offense. I don't care if you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, or extend turns or defense in 1st summary. No new 2ff weighing. I presume 1st speaking team. I have a high bar for not presuming - if it takes longer than 120 seconds for me to decide the round, I will presume. This includes when both teams are winning offense but neither weighs, even if the weighing is obvious.

2. "If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time."

Speed is fine, I will clear you if necessary, send me the doc if going 300+. Don't interrupt women in cx.

---

Theory: Paraphasing is good for debate. In general, I default reasonability. Running theory asks me to intervene, by not evaluating substance, because the in-round abuse supposedly outweighs. You have to make me actually believe that the abuse was significant and outweighs substance, or else I won't intervene. If in doubt, ask before the round.

All online tournaments: If you choose to read any cards, disclosure theory is a TKO. You must send all your case evidence in card form with reasonable context and proper cites to the email chain before you read case.

I care very little about what your evidence says, and I won't read ev unless you tell me to. In fact, I would love a round in which neither team reads any evidence. However, teams seem to be obsessive about evidence-calling, and in this online format, in-round evidence exchange is incredibly clunky and results in a colossal waste of time. Just get it over with before the round. I don't particularly care if you post it on the wiki, and it's fine if you paraphrase your cards in the speech, but the other team needs to be able to read your evidence quickly and readily without wasting everyone else's time while stealing prep time and pretending the email hasn't arrived.

Hi There,

I am a second time parent judge - I would appreciate it if you will introduce your name and school before the start, and not speak too fast.

My judgment will be focused on how you present and rebut with facts and logic together with your skills getting attention of the audience. Look forward to seeing you soon!

Thank you and good luck!

Shawn

Hi! My name is Tyler and I have been debating for multiple years in the University Circuit. I am primarily a British parliamentary debater being a Grand Finalist and/or breaking debater at the North American University Debate Championships, Uhuru World University Debate Championships, Yale Intervarsity Debate Championships etc. However, I have a good amount of experience in Australs, Canadian Parliamentary etc. My judging philosophy is simple.

1. Speaker style is irrelevant when weighing the merits of arguments, focus on the substantive aspects of your case over the stylistic components

2. Being comparative is extremely important. Proving harms or benefits existing in isolation to either side is deeply insufficient to win a round. Debaters must prove why a harm or benefit is either exclusive or exists to a meaningfully larger degree on either side to win a clash.

3. Prioritization of important clashes is more important than line-by-line refutation. Identify what arguments to prioritize and which ones not to. This is not to say that you should completely ignore a seemingly unimportant argument, but an inability to engage and prioritize the most important arguments in a round will harm your ability to win.

4. Be charitable, steelman the other side's arguments and engage with their best conception

Debate is when you give argument to your opponent with reason that could you prove through study case. In judging public debates, I prefer arguments when you can explain burden of proof of the assertion that you claimed. I expect debaters to not give one liner argument when they don't explain why the argument is important and what is the relation between the impact in the future. Not only that, I more likely to judge if there's comparison between your team and your opponent. And how you compare your argument to them and tell me why you are better than the opponent.

Hello!

I did PF, Info, and Extemp in high school and am currently a college student. Although I have experience in competing and judging PF, please make sure to appropriately inform me about the topic. Please give me some proper background and, especially, don't spread fast because I won't understand you or the arguments you've spent hours preparing.

As a former Speech nerd, I appreciate good speaking, but I will obviously rank off of which side gave the more convincing and impactful argument.

I always try to make my decision based on debaters performance without my personal opinions involved. The debaters performance will be graded per clearly organized contentions, persuasive arguments, good cross exam performance, and convincing presentation.

Please speak not too fast, watch your time, and show respects to your opponents.

Hope everyone enjoys the events.

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

update for Harvard:

I do not know any topic-specific jargon. It’s in your best interest to explain things very clearly, no matter what position you run.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things, and you should run what you're most comfortable with. I would prefer if the aff is at least vaguely in the direction of the topic—what this looks like is up to you. Realistically, I am probably better at evaluating policy positions and stock Ks/phil than I am at evaluating theory or other Ks/phil, but I also think debaters who are good at explaining how things interact with the round will win anyways.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

Hi!

I've debated and judged at 50+ uni and high school tournaments before on BP, AP, WSDC and PF formats.

My judging habit is to record nearly every single word debaters say and then cautiously evaluate how each part of speeches functions on each clash, regardless of your speaking rate.

1. I don't automatically believe assertions as valid/strong arguments, unless they're proven or supported. Don't worry! It doesn't mean extra burdens on supporting every sentence you say.

But I suggest you to offer your understanding for the materials you use & minimum explanations & mechanism & analysis & reasoning.

2. I believe warrants should effectively support your stance, not just be listed.

Hi, I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly! I have judged many pf rounds before, but I am still definitely not a flow judge. In round, make sure that you're using logic to explain your arguments thoroughly as well. If you see me writing, don't take it seriously, I am just taking notes. Don't be rude and have fun!

---

Hi this is his daughter that does PF and from what he's told me abt judging here are some tips if he's judging you:

-he doesnt flow everything u say :((( so make sure you're emphasizing the most important things he should be flowing

-he won't feel comfortable voting off your argument if he doesn't understand the logic (if he doesn't understand either side he randomly chooses lol so TALK SLOW and MAKE SENSE)

-he likes it when you have arguments that directly clash (pro and con both run the same arg i.e. innovation) but he also likes clean extensions of args that go conceded

-he adores clean signposting

-also he works in like biology/physics/medical related stuff and knows a lot abt pharma so be accurate lol or he'll know

I am a parent judge who values common sense, clear logic, and coherence.

1. Arguments shall be clear and well-articulated, even if they do not cover every aspect.

2. If your evidence contradicts your opponent's, convince me with logic. More recent evidence may not be better.

3. As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed as long as you are clear. (However - I'm definitely not used to a policy level of speed so send me a speech doc if you do so). I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous. I default to reasonability.

4. Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 2 mins to find it or send it out. Also, I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card.

5. Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in every speech, and collapse on voters in at least FF, if not summary.

6. Be respectful and let your opponents answer the questions you asked during the crossfire.

As a parent judge, I value clarity, commitment, and collaboration. Please don't speak too fast as a steady pace with clear pronunciation and articulation can always make your presentation better understood and more effective. The logic should also be clear and sound. Each member of the team also needs to show full engagement with and devotion to the debate and to their respective position, and they need to support each other to make the team strong. Please remain respectful throughout the debate.

I am a parent judge with limited judging experience. I prefer clear, medium paced, logical and concise speech. I will judge based on the contents and debater’s performance without my own options. I am mainly going to be looking for your support of your arguments and weighing.

I debated PF in high school

Speaking fast is okay just make sure you are speaking clearly.

I don't flow CF

Make sure you make your extensions during the summary speech

Weighing your impacts in the final focus speech is important to me

Do not bring in new arguments or responses in the final focus

Hello. This is Xiaojin Liu and I'm a parent judge at Newton South High School. I prefer logical and concise presentation. I will judge on both the content and how the content to be delivered. I vote for the team that show direct evidence to support your arguments.

I am a parent judge in my 3rd year. Please present your arguments clearly as I try to capture the flow. Please help maintain the pace of the round by mindful of time limits. have enjoyed learning from the debaters about the topic of the round. I prefer to hear the debaters speak on the resolution instead of the rules of debate.

Hi!

My name is Isabella but I go by Izzy. I am a BP debater with over 6 years of experience. I have been judging for five years and have broken to numerous outrounds as a judge.

Please do not speak too quickly and make sure you are clear.

I favour substance over style because I believe rhetoric is less important than the content of your speech.

I will give you a 30 if you make a good Taylor Swift reference :)

I am a parent judge with four years of experience in judging Public Forum. Never competed Public Forum or any other Forensic activities, but as a parent judge I always read some review articles about the topics, therefore I do have some background knowledge in things that you are talking about and enjoy watching the debate.

I prefer clear and not too fast speech, so I can catch up the words and meaning of your talk.

I use following criteria when I judge a round:

Were the arguments intelligent? Your response to the arguments

The discrediting to the opposition’s response

The debaters back up their assertions with logical thinking and evidence when needed

Fair in interpretation of the resolution and one another’s statements?

Who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round?

I don’t weight much on the speed of speech, believe less words with sound arguments are much better than too much words which have to be delivered with fast speech.

Don’t have preference on the format of Summary Speeches, and evaluate argument over style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, their arguments have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches. If a team is second speaking, I prefer that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech.

Don’t vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus.

Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.

- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.

- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.

- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.

- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.

- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.

- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.

I'm a parent judge with the observation of three years of CNDF debate training, 40 hours of BP training, and 54 hours of PF training, and 26 hours of World School training classes. This will be my fifth time to judge PF debate.

I'll be appreciated your clarity, get to the points and logical analysis. Please don't spread, so I can follow your points.

In most cases, I don't have any background knowledge of your motion, so I judge based on what you are saying in the rounds, not my own pre-set opinions. I won't give you detailed comments like your coach, but I will go with the flow and decide my votes by which side are more persuasive.

email: teresa@luo.com

i debated for westlake for 3 years (graduated 2021), and i did pf and some extemp.

i would consider myself to be flay leaning tech.

1. WARRANT. i need more than just jargon.

- this goes for everything in the round (responses, weighing, etc).

- i am tech over truth (excluding offensive arguments), but you need to warrant everything out.

2. collapse and extend too.

- defense is not sticky; pls extend.

- i will only evaluate what has been extended in summary AND in ff. don't bring up new stuff in ff.

3. an argument is dropped if there is no response to it in the next speech.

4. be respectful to everybody in the round.

feel free to ask me questions before or after round! :)

I'm a former high school debater from Thales Academy Apex and thoroughly enjoy the skill and sportsmanship that is present during a debate. I believe the ability to entertain and determine its value without bias is a sign of great skill.

I want solid arguments backed up by air tight evidence. Debaters should be courteous when defending their argument but show determination. Dropping arguments and spreading are things that I do not appreciate.

Above all else face your opponent's argument clearly and directly. Do not play around it and endlessly clash over definitions as this does a disservice to the art of debate.

I am a parent volunteer judge. This is the first time that I serve as a judge for the Public Form debates, but I have always been an avid reader of current news and column articles on the various political and social issues that are the topics of PF debates. I am an evidence-based judge and I can handle moderate speed, but not fast speed. I am looking forward to working with other judges and participants in the upcoming events.

Hi! I am a first-year parent judge for LD. I judged PF last year. I have no prior debating experience, so I hope that you have done plenty of research on your topic and that you will use credible evidence and sound logic to support your arguments!

My expectations for debaters:

--- Speak clearly and calmly in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.

--- Be enthusiastic and confident, but also act natural.

--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.

--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.

--- Signpost in your speeches.

--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.

--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!

Thank you!

Hello! My name is Tian. I am a lay judge and this tournament is my fifth time judging.

Please:

- do not spread, if you spread I will likely miss important information

- try not use debate jargon

- signpost when possible

- give an off-time roadmap before speeches

- implicate your responses

If you have any questions or would like to add me to an email chain, please contact me at ma_tian@yahoo.com

I am relatively new to judging. Please try to avoid jargon and do not speak too quickly if possible. Appreciated!

Taken from Tommy Barone:

I am a senior at Regis High School who has competed with moderate success (a few bids, a lot of elims) in PF (and infrequently in LD) on the National Circuit.

TLDR: I want a civil, unmuddled, honest, inoffensive, and accessible round with comprehensive weighing, persuasive warranting, and sufficient empirics to bear out the argumentation. Make your best effort to follow through on that wish and you're in good shape (but don't feel compelled to abandon your style in so doing; I will adapt as best I can)!

Basic judging philosophy: I view flow norms of debate as useful and ascribe to them only insofar as they are most paradigmatically conducive to rigorous analysis and thorough argumentative engagement. Debate in whatever fashion you believe best meets those two criteria, but I believe that a warrant-focused debate with lots of good comparative analysis and an overarching narrative does so most effectively (and does not require superfluous speed or overuse of jargon).

Long, non-exhaustive, and entirely unstructured set of preferences:

Warrant warrant warrant. I couldn't care less about your evidence if it's not warranted.

Tell me to call evidence and I will; misconstrue it and you're getting horrible speaks.

Spewing debate jargon isn't a rhetorical technique. If it's misused or excessive it's reductive to the intellectual level of the round and it will guarantee you bad speaks.

Weigh early, often, and in a way that interacts with your opponent's weighing. Saying buzz words like "scope" or "magnitude" isn't really compelling if I don't know how your arguments actually interact.

Collapse on your best offense and build a coherent narrative that adequately frontlines major responses. Beyond being poor strategy that massively dilutes your weighing (I'm not going to think multiple pieces of offense important!), I think it's borderline abusive and torpedoes the overall quality of the round because it creates a super reductive burden on the other side to extend and implicate adequate responses for 2+ arguments.

It's fine to read a lot of responses in rebuttal, but if they're not sufficiently explained/implicated or warrantless, I'm going to have trouble evaluating them even if they make it to the end of the round. In final focus and summary, try to collapse on just a few responses and implicate them well.

I'm truly fine flowing fairly fast PF speech, but I will be very annoyed if you don't enunciate and signpost well in so doing.

If you're going to run a turn, please implicate the overall effect thereof. So many people read a "turn" that actually just recognizes one negative effect of something and concludes that it must therefore be net negative. Effects are almost always multidirectional, so, unless you're implicating why something is net your way, I'm probably going to presume that the net effect is whatever the original offense was, or I'll at least avoid voting on the issue. Regardless, unless the turn is well weighed and impacted, I'm really not inclined to vote for it.

In second rebuttal, ideally frontline everything you're going to go for in the back-half speeches. I think it's problematic to only respond to turns in second rebuttal because that leaves first final focus responding anew, which I think creates an unfavorable time skew. I understand this puts pressure on second rebuttal, but you can deal with that by collapsing early (which I would actually appreciate regardless--it makes the weighing nicer). That being said, I won't regard defense as conceded if not frontlined in second rebuttal, I'll probably just dock speaks (note: turns DO need to be frontlined in second rebuttal).

Both summaries need to have defense, offense, and weighing (definitely with a focus on the latter two).

If you read off of your computer for the entire round from prewritten text, you're getting very low speaks because that isn't what debate is.

If you say something was conceded, it better be conceded. Probably my biggest pet peeve in debate is when people say a very clearly responded-to argument was dropped, and I will definitely drop speaks substantially for doing so.

You will lose the round with awful speaks if you run arguments that are inaccessible or argue in an inaccessible way (theory, Ks, spreading, anything from LD/policy). The only theory I'd even consider evaluating would be in response to a genuinely very abusive in-round strategy (examples include: spreading, second rebuttal disads, absurd response dumping, turn dumping).

I will be so mad if your style of argumentation is about muddling up the round with high volumes of non-responsive information.

I am the weakest possible version of tech over truth. The only time I'll vote on a flagrantly untrue argument is if it's totally conceded. While I think good critical-thinkers should always be able to deal with outrageous arguments, running them wastes a team's time, throws them off, and is rarely intellectually honest.

If you run disads, I literally might just not evaluate them because I think they're so abusive (in second rebuttal, I absolutely won't). If you run a disad and call it a turn, I'll be furious (an M4A example: neg differential pricing is not a turn on aff access).

In general, I tend to think that a super turn-heavy strategy by the first-speaking team fringes on abusive and is really reductive to the intellectual quality of the round, so, while I won't intervene because of it, I will a) have a lower standard for how much frontlining needs to be done in second rebuttal and b) have a higher standard for the quality of the extension/weighing of the turn.

I am a parent "lay" judge in Brentwood TN, and I judge for Ravenwood High School.

• Truth > Tech
• DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't understand it, it is not being evaluated.
• Time your speeches/prep.
• I do not disclose for preliminary rounds.
• For elimination rounds, do not post-round me. I am not going to change my decision.
• Speaker points are awarded based on annunciation, strategy, and quality of content.
• Everything in Final Focus MUST have been in Summary. Do not try to sneak something in because I am a lay judge.
• PLEASE COLLAPSE in summary. That being said, do not try to change what you collapsed on in Final Focus. You will receive an L.

Overall, respect each other. Especially in the crossfire. Although I do enjoy humor, please do not be condescending or disrespectful. Have fun!

Hi all reading this. First things first, good work checking paradigms your coach taught you well.

Next a bit about me. I have been coaching middle school debate for 6 years, competed in PF (2 years), LD (2 years), and college policy (1 year). Also, I serve on my city's Housing and Human Services Commission overseeing matters related to section 8, housing insecurity, and now Emergency Rental Assistance.

Finally, on to the part you are probably looking for. The flow determines the round. Please be sure to keep bringing up the most important contentions and don't drop them. I don't want to make a decision in your round because the flow should do it for me. Also be sure to clash, try to address every point your opponent brings up. You don't always need citations. If you can use raw logic to explain why a contention is incorrect then it is incorrect, just address it.

Speaker points are based on both your argument and performance. PF should be accessible if you spread you can still win the round but will have lower speaker points.

Hello My name is Anthony Maglaqui. A little background about myself, I did public forum debate for all 4 years of my high school debate career.

My paradigms are as follows:

I am capable of flowing, so consider me a flow judge.

I do not flow cross-x, I believe cross-x is for both teams to extrapolate/gather information and present to me in your rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses.

If you start spreading, I will not continue to flow. I expect you to articulate your arguments in a timely manner.

Please signpost in your arguments.

I'm a parent judge who brings a multi-cultural and international sensibility to my role, a perspective also informed by more than 25 years of practice in the field of law. With clients that have included hi-tech companies, venture capital funds, and a governmental agency, I have always sought a fact-based and science-driven outlook that values substance over style and rationality over rhetoric. May the best debaters prevail!

Plano West Senior High School ’19; 4 years of PF, 4 FX/DX

Myself:

I debated four years on the North Texas, Texas, and National circuits in PF and extemp. I did alright. If you want to email any speech docs/have questions about the round, here is my email (jamammen01@gmail.com).

PF Paradigm:

My paradigm is kind of long but there is an abbreviated version below. I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:

I will not buy unwarranted arguments even if the warrants are in previous speeches. This is true for simple claims, citations of evidence, and weighing. If a warrant is properly carried through, then the impacts that subsequently follow from previous speeches will be implicitly carried through. If neither side does the legwork necessary, I will lower my threshold for requisite warranting until I find the argument best warranted. Also weigh, I like that.

1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim

2) The 2nd rebuttal has to cover turns or I consider them dropped. On the flip side if turns are dropped, they act as terminal defense. Also in 2nd rebuttal don't read new offensive overviews it doesn't give the opponent's enough time to respond.

3) Defense is sticky even with a 3-minute summary. i.e. even if defense on case is dropped, it must be responded to for case to be evaluated. Offense evaluated must be in the summary, but an uncontested impact will be implicitly flowed through even when not terminalized if the warrant is read (read the full description below).

4) Crossfire is non-binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in the next speech to try and get out of a concession

5) If offense survives 2 speeches untouched (barring case), it's dropped

6) Don't use "risk of offense" unless absolutely necessary

7) Need parallelism in summary/final focus, offensive extensions must be in both speeches

8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument

9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round

10) No new args/weighing in second ff

11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it

12) No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in the first summary

13) Do not try and shift advocacy after rebuttals

14) Anything you want me to write on my ballot should be in summary and final focus. If your opponents drop an argument or don’t respond to sticky defense, you still have to extend it for me to evaluate it.

15) PF is a debate event, but part of it is speaking. speaks are given on how well you speak (more details below)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

Whole paradigm below:

Personal Preferences

Preflowing - Preferably already done before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes, we are starting the round.

Coin Flip – Flip outside if you want or in front of me, either one is fine. Just make sure that both teams are in agreement

Sitting/Standing/etc. - If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. I do prefer however that during actual speeches you stand, it just looks more professional that way

Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD - post round discussion is good for the activity, ask away.

Lastly, I’ll always try to disclose my decision and reasoning if permitted to do so, and always feel free to approach me and ask me questions about the round (jamammen01@gmail.com). I firmly believe round feedback is the best way to improve in this event, and I would love to be a contributor to your success.

Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes, I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. Asking questions ensures that judges are held accountable and requires them to logical defend and stand by their decisions. I do ask that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.

O Postround me if you want to. I am happy to discuss the round with anyone who watched, regardless if you were competing.

O I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more beneficial than harmful to the debate space

Spectators - In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. In prelims, if both teams can agree to let a spectator watch then they are allowed in. That being said, be reasonable, I will intervene if I feel compelled. I would ask that if you are watching, watch the full round. Do not just flow constructives and leave.

General Evaluation

- Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.

- I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. Be logical as to what needs to be carded.

- Well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk

- Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.

- Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.

- If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo.

- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.

- Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. If you say these things explain why the warrant in it matters and how it interacts with your opponent’s case.

- If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing > Triple Beam Balance.

Speech Preferences

- Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.

- I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.

- Highly would prefer line by line up until final focus, this should be big picture. This doesn’t mean ignore warrants, implicating impacts, and weighing. I will evaluate line by line final focuses however.

Framing

- If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my framework for evaluation. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Any time after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.

-I usually default CBA absent framing. Of course, if you present and warrant your own framework this doesn't really matter

Weighing/Collapsing

- Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. It can even be done in the rebuttal if you feel it is helpful. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate, don’t go for everything.

- I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final which shouldn’t happen.

- Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.

- No new terminalization of impacts in final focus (i.e. do not switch from econ collapse leading to job loss to econ collapse leading to poverty)

Extensions

- Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.

- THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact) This is especially true for case args or turns. On defense, the warrant and how it interacts/blocks your opponents arg is fine. A 3-minute summary increases my threshold for this extension.

- I advise that even though defense is sticky, extend critical defensive cards in summary and weigh them. I am more inclined to buy it.

- My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then, I need you to do some minimal warrant/impact extension for me to give you offense

-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....

-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization.

Progressive arguments:

*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument

I don’t like these arguments and am inclined not to vote on them as they should not be very prominent in pf and should not be seen as free wins. I think that the discussions that are created through theory are good, but should be had outside the setting of round. That being said however, if there is a clear violation by your opponents, run theory and I will vote on it. Do not run disclosure theory, you will get dropped.

Speaks/Speed:

TLDR: My range is generally 27-30. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job. I give all 30s on bubble rounds, anyone with a good record should clear. Speaks should not be the difference in you breaking if you win the bubble round.

- I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times, we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. If you think an email chain would be helpful, start one and add me (jamammen01@gmail.com). Good job for reading this long you deserve a reward, creative contention names geet +.5 speaker points .

- General Penalties (This is just a condensed, but not all inclusive, list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):

1) Taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)

2) Taking too long pull up evidence

3) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)

4) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you

5) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears

6) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices

7) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.

8) Severe evidence misrepresentation (Trust me you probably won't want to see your speaks if you do this)

-Bonus speaks. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you

1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)

2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)

3) +1 if your laptops are just closed(without misrepresenting evidence)

Evidence:

- I will call for evidence if I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also call if I am just curious.

- I would suggest having cut cards for anything you read available.

- If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm calling for it and dropping it if misrepresented.

- Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.

- "Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In the case I call for evidence after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it", but it will be looked down upon.

o L/20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.

o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it is dropped

o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.

Round Disclosure:

- I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.

-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.

- No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging but I will respect them.

Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of a couple people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53914

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=54964

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=art&search_last=tay

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=84007

Feel free to ask me any other questions before or after the round (jamammen01@gmail.com)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

LD/CX Paradigm

If you get me as a judge in these events, I AM SO SORRY. My best advice would be to treat the round like a pf one, as this is how I will be evaluating it. This means going a bit slower and keeping theoretical/progressive arguments to a minimum. I will however, evaluate these arguments to the best of my ability if they are presented to me. Again, very sorry.

Extemp Paradigm

IDK if anyone is actually going to be looking at this, but I will write one just in case. I am a very flow judge even in extemp. I believe that what you are saying matters more that how you say it. That being said, this is a speaking event and how you say things matters. (I say like 70% what you say, 30% how you say it). This means not just reading off a bunch of sources like an anchor, give me your analysis on the topic. That is what will boost your rank. In terms of speaking speak clear and confident. Also, I like humor, make me laugh. Any Marvel references are appreciated.

If you say anything super questionable or unreasonable, I will fact check it. If it turns out you were making things up, it will be reflected negatively on the ballot.

Random

Also if the round is super late and you guys don't want to debate (i.e. not bubble round or higher bracket) we can settle the round with a game of smash or poker or smthg...if you guys are good with it.

Lastly, have fun!

Hi, I did Public Forum debate for four years at Lake Mary Prep in Orlando, Florida.

Some things I like:

Warrants and lines of logic over evidence that is unwarranted

Weighing, the earlier the better

Front-lining in Second Rebuttal. You don't have to do this but I think it is a good idea

Narratives

Collapsing ***** 3 min summary does not mean go for more, just COLLAPSE BETTER *****

My coach always used to say "50% fewer arguments and 100% more analysis"

Some things I don't like:

Miscut Evidence. I am fine with paraphrasing but please make sure its an accurate representation of the evidence (I reserve the right to drop you if it is seriously misrepresented)

Blippy Arguments that are not weighed, warranted, or implicated

Spreading

Theory / Ks unless there is a serious issue or abuse in the topic or the round. I am also really bad at understanding these, so you should probably strike me if this is your thing.

Any bigoted argument I will immediately drop you no questions asked.

To Summarize, In the poetic words of Ozan Ergrunor:

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

I have judged almost every form of debate possible. I have been involved in US policy debate since its invention. You must respond to the other teams arguments. Flowing is good. You be your best debater. I will try and be a fair judge. I am very familiar with the PF topics. Be nice to your opponents and your debate partner.

One last thing. I do not think PF debate has the capacity to provide space to have a good debate about arguments relating to "disclosure" and "paraphrasing" as a reason to lose a debate. It is an international event and those particular cultural norms are not accessible for everyone across the planet of debate.

You can put me on the email chain : stormeebryemassey@gmail.com

NOTE- I do not look at your speech doc during round- I only ask to be on the chain in case I need to view cards after round. Please do NOT assume that because something is in your doc, it was flowed.

Team Involvement:

Coaching Experience:

Head Coach of US Debate Formats for Vancouver Debate Academy (BC)

Former Director of Debate at Grapevine HS and Trinity HS in TX.

I have over 7 years of experience coaching competitive speech and debate.

Competitive Experience:

College: University of Oklahoma Class of 14'

HS: Flower Mound High School 09'

Background in Events: I did Policy debate for 9 years (4 at Flower Mound High School; 5 at OU)- I was a big K debater.

I have coached students in CNDF, BP, Policy, LD, Congress, WSD, and Public Forum.

I currently coach Public Forum Debate, WSD, CNDF, and BP.

PF [Updated for Stanford 1/9/24]

Here are my top five suggestions if you have me in a PF round:

1. Be organized- I keep a clean flow (I was a policy debater for a long time and have judged on a collegiate level). Do not say your opponent missed something unless you are 100% positive.

2. Have evidence readily available- I evaluate a lot of your credibility in context of your evidence. If evidence is paraphrased poorly, is out of context, is not easily accessible, or is clipped- your team will lose points with me. Debate with integrity :)

3. Crossfire with care- Try to drive crossfire with questions and strategy- I am not a fan of back and forth arguments/tiffs during crossfire. Avoid being aggressive, please. I do pay attention to crossfire.

4. I am a gameboard judge (tech over truth- barring offensive argumentation that is racist, sexist, etc.). - if you concede an offensive argument- that is potential offense for your opponent. If your opponent concedes an argument- point it out and extend it. I will almost always evaluate tech over truth if spin is not addressed directly.

5. I am not likely to vote on frivolous arbitrary theory- if you read an argument that your opponent should lose because they didn't do some arbitrary thing like putting their phone number on the wiki- I will not likely vote for you and will likely want to vote against you. For me to vote on theory- you have to prove in-round abuse. However, if your opponent concedes the theory, I will vote on it- I will just be very sad.

Harvard Judging Update: I am very familiar with the PF feb topic

I have competed in PF and help write the Debatetrack brief and run Public Forum Debate Academy on YouTube.

Add me to the email chain if there is one (I'll provide my email at the beginning of a round). I like speech docs and can handle up to ~200 wpm.

I enjoy debates where people incorporate some logic into the round. You can have as many arguments at the beginning of the round, just make sure there is time to explain each one in-depth (examples and a detailed impact are helpful). At the end of the round I’m likely to consider voting in one to three places, so you should condense your arguments as the round progresses (especially in summary speech for those in Public Forum). Additionally, having a narrative/story alongside your contentions is helpful and can aid in getting high speaker points.

While I don't need off-time roadmaps/order of your speech, I am happy to accept them (so long as they are brief). Regardless of that, please tell me where you are starting, whether that is stated in the roadmap or at the beginning of your speech.

Do not be aggressive in cross or speeches, I value respect, and continually interrupting the other side in the crossfire almost always is not good for your ballot. Smugness, head shaking, and smirking/laughing at your opponents will lose you speaker points.

For evidence, I like to have dates and author's last name in accordance with NSDA guidelines. Ideally, you should qualify your sources/authors and let me know what type of study or article the evidence is. After the first mention of the evidence, you can refer to the evidence as the author's last name.

In close rounds, I want to be persuaded and I may just listen to both Final Focus/LD Neg Rebuttal & Aff Rebuttal speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

If you put in believable and effective weighing mechanisms, then I will almost certainly vote for you if there is no other clear-cut comparative analysis. If there are multiple weighing analyses from both sides, I vote for the most compelling (best explained, most realistic) weighing. You can also refute the weighing and I am thus less likely to vote off that weighing unless it is defended.

In particular, I find the truest arguments to be the best place to vote. Thus, discussion of probability is usually more important than the scope or magnitude of an issue. This is not to say scope is unimportant, I am willing to default to the believability of an argument before I consider how many people are impacted.

If there's no weighing, I generally vote for the argument that has been defended the most. In Public Forum, I am looking for arguments to be extended in Summary and Final Focus if they want to be considered

As for time, I will let each team finish up a sentence/concept but f a new response is made overtime, I will not consider it.

In crossfire, I appreciate two things. First, logical questions are appreciated. Second, evidence indicts are also good, although they can be a tad tougher to execute.

At the end of the day, while I do flow, I am more lay than most teams recognize. Great rounds for me include the NSDA National and State finals because they incorporate logic and analytics with solid evidence. I respect a mature, calm, and logical team.

Theory - I don't think I am qualified to vote for a full theory shell but if the opponents have bad evidence ethics I am open to theory. Paraphrasing theory is ok as well, just don't make the shell too technical

Kritiks - really not familiar to these.

I'll be looking for well-organized arguments that demonstrate the impact and significance of your points. I'll also be looking for direct responses to your opposing team's points. Good luck!

This is the second year judging PF. I have watched a demo video and read the material provided by the tournament for judges.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

I did Public Forum debate in High School. I'm pretty much a flow judge, but it makes things unenjoyable for me when everything is entirely tech during the round and I don't get to hear one nicely presented speech. Maybe something to think about as you reach Final Focus.

Some general things: I don't time prep or speeches, I trust you all to do so. I don't flow cross, but I will add something from cross to my flow if you bring it up in your speech. I don't call for cards unless they become voters, I can explain what this means if you have questions. I appreciate extensions in summary. I need weighing/impact analysis in the final two speeches.

I give feedback!

Hello! I did PF for four years on the local Minnesota and national circuit. I'm not a coach, so I am not familiar with topic-specific terminology.

My email is mckin513@umn.edu. Feel free to reach out if there's anything I can do to make the round better for you or if you have questions. Also, please add me to your email chains :)

tldr: I am a traditional flow judge. I highly value accessibility and expect all debaters to make sure their opponents are not excluded from the debate.

General

- Philosophy: Debate is an art. Judge adaptation is a skill, but judges should also allow students room for self-expression and adapt to differing styles. All styles of debate are equally valid.

- Be nice and respectful! Please refrain from laughing at your opponents, yelling in cross, and slamming tables. You and your opponents are people first and debaters second.

- If your case contains triggering material: read a content warning and have an alternate case ready. Failure to do so will cap your speaks at 27. I realize this is harsh, but accessibility and safety are essential. If I feel you are making the round unsafe for your opponents, I will end the round and award your opponents the win.

- Please don't be offensive. If you do, I will vote you down, give you low speaks, and contact your coach.

- Warrants are everything! Please don't forget to explain the why of your arguments (especially in the second half of the round!!)

Speed

- I'm really not a fan of spreading because I find it exclusionary. I won't outright vote you down if you spread but I will be sympathetic if your opponents can't get to everything.

- With that being said, I do not have a problem with speed. I actually prefer faster-paced debates so as long as you don't have to send a speech doc, we're good.

- If your opponents are going too fast, loudly say "clear." If your opponents say clear, slow down!

Evidence Ethics

- I'm also not a fan of paraphrasing. I won't drop you because of it, but again, I'll be more sympathetic to your opponents if they can't address every card you read.

- I rarely call for evidence so its on you to check your opponent's ethics.

- If your evidence is called and you're paraphrasing, you need to present a cut card and the paraphrased snippet you read.

- If I find out you're misrepresenting evidence I'll more than likely vote you down on that alone.

Lincoln-Douglas

- Please make sure to signpost!

- Extend the warrants (cause/why the impact happens) along with your impacts

- Numbering your responses will boost your speaks

- Weigh! Specifically, you should explain why the framework means we have to prefer your case and why we shouldn't prefer your opponent's

Progressive Debate

- I am generally of the opinion that progressive arguments are good for debate when they make sense and serve a purpose. I'll give an example. If you're running a K to increase awareness about LGBTQ+ issues, great! If you're running a counterplan to confuse your opponents, not so great. Basically, care about the issues you're debating and don't exclude people.

- I don't know the specific terms/language associated with progressive debate.

- If your opponents are running progressive arguments and you're not familiar with progressive debate, don't worry! Just try to respond to it the same way you would any other argument: use your logic and don't worry about using the right terms. I'll be sympathetic if you're in this position.

- If your opponents are abusive in round and you don't know how to respond with a shell/other form of progressive argumentation, please still call the abuse out however you like (just no easter eggs). I'll still vote on it!

I am a parent judge and have been actively judging since 2019 in multiple national tournaments. I have completed the NSDA judge training and Cultural Competency course. As a global business professional, I travel extensively and am fairly familiar with most topics debated in NSDA PF.

Speak at a reasonable pace – clarity is your responsibility. If you make an argument, you should explain and weigh the argument. Warranting is important. Clearly signpost throughout the round. Extending an impact, without explaining its warrant won’t win you the impact. Paraphrasing is fine – but needs to be accurate. Explain clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win.

Cards: Exchange of cards is mandatory when requested. If you cannot produce a card in 2 minutes, I will ignore it.

Timing: Time yourself (rounds and prep)

Audience: This is public forum – public (especially parents) are welcome.

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 am a parent judge and my daughter has been doing the debate for little over 3 years, I understand the structure of the PF debate. Don't speak too fast and speak in a phase your rendering is understandable. I expect both the teams to be respectful to each other.

I am the parent of a former Varsity Public Forum debater at Bronx Science, an intellectual property attorney, and former university professor of sociology and education. I hold degrees in biology, sociology, and the law. You should consider me a flay judge. I have judged over 80 rounds of PF debate and 8 rounds of speech competition, including at the Tournament of Champions (x2), Harvard (x2), Big Bronx (x2), Yale, Princeton, the Barkley Forum, Glenbrooks, and Apple Valley, among others.

I would appreciate your speaking at a reasonable pace to better enable me to understand your contentions and rebuttals. I value logical, well-warranted reasoning and analysis presented with clarity and precision. Signposting at the beginning of your speeches is also advised, especially during Summary and Final Focus. This will help me follow where you are going. Tell me clearly and precisely why I should vote for your side.

Finally, respect your opponents. Allow them to speak without constant interruption during Crossfire. I appreciate spirited advocacy but expect civility and decorum during the debate. Have fun!

I have been coaching and judging since 2013. I'm a flow judge, and I am fine with speed to a point. However, if you see me put down my pen, it means I've stopped flowing because you're speaking too quickly.

When it comes to argumentation, don't assume I am an expert on the topic at hand. I'm leaving all my prior knowledge and opinions about the resolution at the door, so you need to clearly explain your framework (if you have it) for the resolution, and your claims/warrants/impacts should be clear throughout your debate. Make sure to signpost your speeches so I know exactly where you are on the flow. In rebuttals, make sure to actually clash with your opponents' argument, and if you're cross-applying (which I love when it's done correctly), just mention the contention you're using to do so.

In cross X, make sure to give your opponent time to respond to your questions, and give your opponent the chance to ask questions. It will hurt your speaker points if you're rude or show a lack of respect towards your opponent during cross x.

As the debate winds down, make sure to crystalize the point you want me to vote on, and be sure to weigh those points with the points your opponent has.

Pretty much, I'll vote off the flow, so just be sure to make it as clear to me as possible the arguments you've won and why you've won them at the end of the round.

A little bit about me: I competed in speech and debate for three years during high school, specifically in PF, Congress, limited prep, and interp events. I even dabbled a little in LD and World Schools. Now, I stay involved with the speech and debate community by coaching PF at Phoenix Country Day School in AZ.

As far as paradigms go, I'm open to pretty much any argument you can warrant properly and impact out. I will vote off the flow, but that means your arguments need to be made clear to me. I can keep up with speed, but if I put my pen down, you've lost me. At the end of the round, I am looking for offense, which includes both the impact and the link into that impact, that has been extended cleanly through the debate. Then, it comes down to the weighing that you have done for me on that offense. Don't make me do that work for you because it probably won't turn out the way you want it to!

General things to note:

• Please stand for your speeches unless there is a legitimate reason you are unable to. It helps your public speaking, your persuasiveness, your confidence, you name it.
• For the love of all things holy, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST!!!! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I am to vote for you.
• I like off-time roadmaps. That means something short like, "I'm going aff then neg," or, "The order will be overview, their case, our case." It shouldn't be anything more than telling me where I will be flowing.
• I will not call for a card unless you specifically ask me to during one of your speeches.
• If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.
• Don't be rude to your opponents. I love a little sass and sarcasm because debate definitely calls for that sometimes, but don't blatantly disrespect one another.

Technical things to note:

• Second rebuttal should frontline (quickly) anything that will be extended in summary.
• Extend important defense. Defense is sticky, but it strengthens your position if you hang onto important defense throughout the round.
• Counterplans: These don't belong in PF. They are a clear violation of rules. Counter advocacies with the necessary probability weighing are fine, but no plan text or specific implementation plan.
• Kritiks: I find Ks really interesting, and I am all for their entrance into PF when you have a tech judge/panel. I want you to read your K to me as if I have not read the literature surrounding the issue though. Just because you say a buzz word, does not mean I understand the argument. Make sure it is well formulated if you want my ballot.
• Theory: If there is a clear violation of PF rules, don't run a shell. Just tell me about the violation during a speech, and that will suffice. If there is a violation of norms that you feel is genuinely worthy of bringing up (i.e. no frivolous theory), I am willing to hear it out. That being said, I am not super well-versed in theory debate, so you just need to make sure you explain to me what the impact of your argument is on the round and why I should care about it. In all honesty, if a team runs theory, you are probably more likely to get my ballot without running a counterinterp and just responding to it the way you would any other argument. All the jargon starts to get lost on me.

I started this technical section based on questions I am frequently asked in round. It is nowhere near exhaustive, so if you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to ask me when both teams are present before the round!

Also, please include me in the email chain: mittelstedt.taylor@gmail.com

I am an occasional debate judge and a parent of Concord-Carlisle students in the classes of '24 and '27.

This will be my first time judging a debate competition. So, please maintain eye contact and pace yourself a bit slowly. I used to participate in debates in high school, do have a sense of what to expect.

I am an analytics professional. I would look for how multiple pieces of evidence and data are stitched together to arrive at a conclusion. My evaluation would also take into consideration if evidence presented is anecdotes and singular data points as opposed to multiple pieces of evidence pointing towards same conclusion.

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

As a judge, it is my priority to create a safe space for speakers to grow and to have fun.

I have been in debating game for 6 years now as a speaker and judge. I have coached a provincial team and currently the shadow coach for the South African national team.

Things I like to see in speeches are a well understanding of the topic , strategic awareness and being able to adapt your case and responses to what is most contentious in the debate.

I'm a Parliamentary debater at Harvard. Don't speak fast. If you run theory, I will drop you.

Background

Debated for over four years and has experience adjudicating British Parliamentary, WSDC and Public Forum debates.

Thoughts

1. Debates are about engaging and discussing various standpoints; therefore, I enjoy a round where teams try to engage with their opposition as much as possible. Parallel debates can be difficult to adjudicate and leaves adjudicators with a difficult task of weighing parallel arguments and having to pick which one they relate to most.

2. Always prioritize analysis over matter dumping. Debates are about being able to defend a stance and that requires sufficient analysis of whatever that stance may be. In case you find your team having a lot of points to canvass, always opt for those you consider strongest and focus on analysis.

3. Be conscious of whatever stances you decide to defend. Always try and make the room as safe a space as possible for everyone to engage in the debate. Avoid making arguments that come off as racist, sexist or discriminatory in any way. Always address yourself to the points raised and avoid personal attacks or directing any negative comments towards individual speakers no matter what their stance may be.

My paradigm in judging would be I'm okay with any style in debating and do not have a specific preference in this part, I believe that every manner is still worth to be appreciated as long as the speech is still comprehensive.

However, I see debating as an critical thinking prowess. I appreciate debaters that put front logical flow/structural flow in order to espouse their points, as opposed to simply dump data and statistic to support such points.

So things like Likelihood/Exclusivity of Harm/Benefits for example, is a line of logic I'd deeply appreciate.

I am a newer parent judge. Please speak slowly and don't use technical jargon.

Hi! I'm Pradyumn, an 11th grader from Kolkata, India, and this is the first PF tournament I'll be judging in. I'm also relatively new to PF debate, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't speak TOO fast. But don't be, like, R2D2. Just don't be Eminem. Looking forward to the debates. Best of luck :D

Tabula rasa. Speed is okay, however please be clear and enunciate your words. Roadmaps are appreciated. No new disadvantages or offensive overviews after first rebuttal. I will also disregard any theory-based progressive arguments. Any inherent discrimination such as sexism, racism, or homophobia will result in immediate loss. I do keep time, however, please time yourself too,and especially after prep time, please confirm time left.

Hey, I'm a lay judge! This is my second year judging.

Some things I'd like to make the round easier for me and for you:

I'd prefer it if you weren't spreading as much so that I can thoroughly understand your argument.

Also, since I don't know much about the topic, I'd appreciate it if you could explain your argument well to me. 

Good Luck,

Narendra

Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

I am currently a PF coach, but my main focus of teaching is younger students in PRO-CON debate.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. I personally like off-time road map for easier flow.

2. Please have your camera on AND time yourself. It is important for you to get in the habit of timing yourself and being able to adjust to the timer.

3. I am HEAVY on frontlining (reconstruction) during second rebuttal AND summary. If I don't hear a frontlining in the second rebuttal, I will be disappointed.

4. I like clear weighing mechanism and USE the weighing mechanism terms in your speech. (ex. we outweigh on ____).

5. If your case is a sole contention, make sure to emphasize the subtopics AND impact and terminal impact.

6. Make sure your contention title is related to your argument and what you are talking about.

7. I highly favour quantifiable evidence over ANYTHING ELSE. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

Any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behaviour will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :)

Do not talk over people OR cut people off during crossfire. I care a lot about mannerism and etiquette during the rounds. It is important to get your idea addressed, but please let others talk.

Lastly, Have Fun:)

Hi I am a parent judge who has judged a few local PF rounds! I will vote off of the flow and will be pretty generous with speaks, but make sure you speak clearly so I can follow the round!

Public Forum

I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)

My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.

Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional – Debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Given that, I'm a good judge for T/framework. One might even say it makes the game work. I don't think the correct palliative for inequalities in the debate community is to take a break from debating the topic. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. That is SO easy to do on the high school CJR topic - I would much rather listen to a reform vs abolition debate than rehashed stuff from past years. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points- My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Saying "baudy" caps your points at 28.7.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision.

With a cumulative 13+ years of experience across multiple formats (CX, LD, PF, WSDC, Congress, BP, AP, etc) and across multiple circuits (5 continents), I like to think that I've seen it all, so I'll keep it simple.

I value and reward consistency in logic. The less logical leaps in your argument, the better.

Analyze everything, don't make assumptions.

Rebuttals should be thorough.

Don't make up evidence, I wouldn't hesitate to call for cards if something doesn't add up.

Cross (or POI in WSDC/BP) is also part of the debate, take it very seriously.

Be kind and respect your opponents.

I have no background in high school or college debate, but I have been a practicing attorney for more than 35 years and have been judging PF debates for 8 years.

I am a great believer in the “citizen judge” roots of Public Forum. The debater’s job is to persuade the man on the street, with no background as to the resolution of the month, that pro or con should win. Thus, clarity and focus are paramount. Your job is to persuade, not confuse, me. Well-structured arguments and effectively utilized evidence are key, but so are articulation, modulation, and engagement. A glance up from your laptop from time to time can work wonders, as can staying in the Zoom frame in a well-lighted room.

I do flow arguments, but not in a very technical way. A dropped argument will only count against you if it is material to your overall presentation and not offset by more meritorious arguments that make it through Final Focus.

Spreading and the pointless acceleration of pacing it engenders are strongly discouraged. You should choose your arguments carefully and deliver them at a pace, and with an energy and focus, that are designed to persuade.

Use your evidence fairly and judiciously. Do not overstate its significance or twist its meaning beyond recognition. I will only ask to see your card if the outcome of a round turns on an evidentiary dispute, but, if it comes to this, you want to be confident that your card can be read as presented. Also, feel free to request your opponent's cards, but do so sparingly and only when necessary to dispute a material contention or buttress a key argument.

Unfortunately, only one team can win; that’s the way it is in real life and in every courtroom I have ever appeared, so try to roll with the punches.

Most importantly, have fun. Few things are as satisfying as a hard-fought win; or as motivating (for the next round) as a too-close-to-call loss.

I like to hear simple, clear, and logical arguments explained in terms of the resolution being debated, with the reasoning explained at moderate pace and organized to enable the audience to understand its most significant issues and points. Rapidly citing a large number of sources without explaining anything about the source is not so convincing to me, and lengthy quotation of the opinions of sources that do not themselves justify their reasoning is not persuasive.

I especially like to see debaters take seriously the meaning and intent of their opponent's main positions and understand their opponent's evidence and engage with it substantially, not dismissively.

Polytechnic '20

Harvard '24

Add me to the email chain: oogbogu@college.harvard.edu

Competed in policy debate throughout high school and currently competing in college. I have competed in PF and parli as well, though.

I generally am more familiar with the K; however, please continue to run whichever argument you want. Everyone should have that fair opportunity.

Pref me lower for a policy vs. policy round, but policy vs.K or FW vs. K or K VS. K I'm better suited for.

Framework: I do love framework when it is utilized and argued properly by both sides, and I find that especially for Kritikal teams, I love to see teams leverage their K's impacts against the impacts of the framework arg. Clash is key when discussing FW; the team who can better articulate the setup of debate and their impacts will have a better chance of winning FW and further args.

Please use framing and judge instruction. It truly will bolster your arguments and when done right. Streamline the debate very well.

CPs: Pretty neutral on these as I haven't really hit them in a while. Your CP has to be competitive to the purpose/solvency of the AFF. Please perm, perms allow you to test this competition.

Das: Again, pretty neutral, but your link must be articulated well, and your impact must be carried through. Affs should evidence and link chains thoroughly and weigh their impacts against the DA.

K: I read the K most of my high school career and still reading it in college. I am most familiar with critical Race Theory, antiblackness, Black Feminity literature, and args in generally all capacities. That being said, I follow identity args and literature much better than high theory, so for high theory Ks like Baudrillard, please be clear with your argument throughout the round. Jargain is not debate or clash. I am sympathetic to some explanations of the K, but I am in a firm belief that the K must be grounded in the aff, especially links. I love performative links, and I think extrapolating those performances to textual links makes the strong K args. Contextualize your alternative. I need to know what the alt is and what it does, and how it solves. It must be coherent, and I say this outside of clear, but the alt must make sense by the end of the round and prove competitive. Affs should always perm to test both competitions on solvency and link. Outside of that, I love hearing all new sorts of Ks and args, and it would be appreciated on both sides if there is a K vs. Policy/FW debate that both sides create clash so an in depth debate can take place.

K affs: I personally ran k affs as well throughout high school and college, and I think they offer a lot of creativity and perspective to various topics I think are needed. That being said, my only ask is that you explain and extend. If you aff is a counter-model to debate, I need an explanation of how and why it is needed. If you do not have a counter interp, I need an explanation as to why it is not needed. If your aff is somewhat grounded in the resolution, I need an explanation of the relationship between the aff and the resolution and why you chose your stance. If you choose not to be with the resolution, I need a clear reason why that is a necessary choice. Be consistent with your args, have proper solvency, and do a lot of clash and weighing of the aff and its impacts. Please extend your arguments. It will only make the aff stronger but don't lose the aff in the debate, that will be harmful.

CX: I am fine with tag team cross. If. I feel that someone is rude that will mark down speakers. That being said, I like seeing a respectful cross and an understanding that some of the args that people read are more personal than others. Therefore, understanding CX should be the point in debate where we go back to being normal people who understand this. I believe CX does garner args from the flow. I will write down these arguments, but it is a team's responsibility to extend them to be proper arguments. Extra speaks for good CX starts and questions. I appreciate humor, but I also appreciate seriousness, so however you enter the CX, enter it the way most authentic to yourself.

Overall, you do you, and I will flow. I start all my evaluations from the level of framing, so please have a lot of judge instruction and ROB and ROJ. Clash, weighing and impacts key, and run whatever makes you happy. It goes without saying I don't tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything of the sort, and teams, especially those running these arguments within reasonability, should feel comfortable pointing this out in round and determining if they are voters or not. Simultaneously it is also important to understand we are all learning and growing and notice that weaponizing growing moments against people may not actually educate anyone or solve the situation, so prioritize education and growth over debate.

Thanks, Maddox, for helping me with this, lol.

I debated public forum for 6 years from middle school to the end of HS at BC Academy.

Please read this paradigm carefully before so that we don't have delays. Assume that I will always be ready.

Zoom Specific:

My campus's wifi is not very nice, I do advise you to disclose your case to me at roseoh1004@gmail.com before the round actually starts if you are planning to spread. Ddd me to the email chains while you're at it!

can handle up to 200 words per minute cuz you never know when my wifi will crash <3 , please send me your speech docs if you are planning to spread over my limit

I don't care if your camera is off or not if your wifi is also like mine but turning it on is recommended to replicate the in-person debate experience to the largest extent

Please try to wear headphones so that no one echos in the debate round -- my personal pet peeve!

General:

My debate terminology is a little rusty. Progressive strategies might throw me off but I will try to understand and follow them to the best of my abilities.

I'm tech>truth, so make sure to call out sus cards in front of me (I will call for cards if this is notably important at the end of the round - this is why i suggest teams to send me their cases)

If you're saying something problematic/homophobic/anything along those matters, I automatically give you a 20 on speaker points

If you're rude and not professional, I deduct 1 speaker point every second you keep up the attitude until it reaches 20

If it takes you more than 5 minutes to get the card, you don't have the card (actually Yale requires me to be patient a little, so I'll just deduct prep time until u run out lol)

Preferably time yourselves, but don't abuse this - I'd rather focus on the flow/content

I will keep track of prep though, seen too many debaters tryna pull a fast one on me

Much as I like double drop theory for the entertainment factor, do not run this as the ballot doesn't allow me to do so

I consider defence sticky in the 1st summary

2nd rebuttal should frontline offence

extend in SS to be considered in FF I will not extend for you

impact weighing is a must for me in FF, weighing in summary is not required --> if you don't weigh, don't expect to win the round

please do the work for me. I do not like to build bridges or connect messy points together to flesh out what happened in the round nor like to artificially make clashes for debaters

MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN!!!! DEBATE IS NOT THE END NOR THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD

I have a bachelors degree in communication and public relations. I have debate experience from being elected senior class senator for Marymount University.

COPY FROM BLAKE MEYER

- 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.***

tabs judge. be nice, please :).

give explicit voters and weighing. basically, summarize the key points and tell me why your team deserves to win the debate.

did LD for 2 years, PF for one. Currently debate for the Harvard College Debate Union

Hello! I'm currently a junior at Harvard College debating in APDA with experience judging PF, World Schools, and APDA.

Be polite and respectful during rounds.

If possible arrive early

I OPT OUT OF ALL DISCUSSIONS OF ISRAEL/HAMAS

You will be auto-dropped if you read arguments relating to the current conflict.

General debate best practices:

I care more about warranting than about evidence, just quoting a New York Times article is not enough to convince me of your argument.

I appreciate off-time road-maps and clear side-posting, but it will not negatively affect you if you do not do these things.

Weighing is important! Please explicitly weigh why an argument is more important than your opponents.

You do not need to prove complete solvency for me to buy an impact or argument - ie any reduction in climate change is better than no reduction, regardless of if you solve climate change

For PF:

I cannot understand spreading so please try not to read faster than 212 words/min. If I can't understand it, I won't evaluate it.

I generally don't buy high-impact low probability arguments unless they are well warranted—ie if you say x will lead to nuclear war, there must be a very good link-chain.

I generally don't flow cross-ex, if a contradiction is important please pull it through to FF!

For APDA:

I don't have any theory pre-beliefs.

For LD:

I cannot understand spreading so please try not to read faster than 212 words/min. If I can't understand it, I won't evaluate it.

I will not evaluate theory or ks, so don't read them.

Public Forum

TL;DR: Flow judge; line-by-line, but warrants are important. No spreading. Weigh. Stay away from progressive-style arguments.

Experience: I competed in PF from 2016-2020 (and some LD) at Phoenix Country Day School. I currently study politics, rights, and development at NYU.

General Philosophy

I am a flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If say you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.

I firmly believe that Public Forum should be accessible to all levels of debate experience, and I am less inclined to see arguments that serve to exclude the general public amicably. Generally, I'd much rather see well-paced debate with clear depth over high-speed debate with wide breadth.

Speed: Slow rounds > fast rounds; If you plan on spreading... don't.

Structure:

- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.

- First summary only has to extend defense if it is front-lined in second rebuttal.

- If your rebuttal "overview" is a hidden contention I will not evaluate it.

Weighing: Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense (don't weigh on probability; I view probability as deriving from strength of warrants).

Evidence: I deplore evidence abuse. If you deliberately misconstrue the words or arguments of your sources, I will drop you. I will call for cards if I have good reason to suspect evidence abuse or if your opponents tell me to.

Crossfire: You will not win off of crossfire, but if you get a digression/warrant explanation and extend it into speeches, I will flow it. I promise that you won't embarrass yourself with simple clarifying questions; debate is much better when everyone knows wth is going on. Grand is unequivocally stupid; don't compromise your chance at winning/speaks by getting all frustrated, I'm probably ignoring the content anyways.

Speaks: Are a reflection of politeness, oral/rhetorical proficiency, and organization (signposting/numbering). If you demonstrate support for or knowledge about the Phoenix Suns you get +0.5.

Techy/Progressive Arguments: As a PF debater, I do not expect you to be educated on the specific formats of technical arguments. Such an expectation reeks of privilege; accessibility is the rule. I expect any argument you make to me to be conceptually understandable by a moderately educated adult with no debate experience.

- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or frivolous Theory, I will become annoyed and drop you.

- Arguments with critical and/or pre-fiat impacts not in K format can be ok, just make sure to give your opponents a meaningful route to the ballot.

- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments. No to speaker-point/disclosure theory.

Other:

- I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email.

- I prefer a chill, relaxed, and informal vibe in rounds. Have fun!

I have judged debate prior to this event. I would appreciate not fast speaking so that I can clearly hear the arguments. This would be my first NSDA tournament to judge.

I have been coaching and judging various kinds of speech and debate for 13 years, mostly Team Policy and Parliamentary. I consider myself to be a net benefits flow judge. However, this is my first time judging Public Forum.

To get my ballot,

- explain how your arguments are to be preferred over your opponents'

- help me flow your arguments with SHORT tags, and refer to your opponent's tags when responding to those

- Speak clearly so I can understand you. I will vote for fewer, more clearly understandable arguments than a flurry of points trying to cover everything. If you talk fast, I will not understand you and likely will not vote for you.

Thanks, good luck, and have fun!

My name is Sapna Palla. I am a lay/parent judge and not a seasoned debater or debate judge - so not a great judge for spreading strategies. I encourage you to speak slowly, loudly and logically so that I may follow your arguments and properly account for them. To me, good reasoning supported by solid evidence is what wins. I believe that talking over your opponents or treating them in a disrespectful fashion detracts from your argument and from the high level of discourse we all seek.

Lay judge with limited local experience. Please do not spread.

I'm a parent lay judge who's judged two tournaments before.

No theory. Expect me to know very little about how debate works, so reduce use of jargon and tech strategies. I also don't know much about the topic, so be sure to explain things thoroughly. Most likely to be truth over tech, so don't try to argue something ridiculous or highly unrealistic. Weighing is very important. I'm new to flowing so SPEAK SLOWLY.

1. State your name, team, and side before speeches.
2. Keep track of your own time.
3. Be respectful to your opponents in the round.
4. Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions. I will be providing written feedback after the round is over.
5. Have fun and enjoy yourselves!

• I consider myself an amateur "parent judge."
• I have a background in Information Technology
• I make my decision mainly on the contentions you win on the basis of evidence, & weighing in the Final Focus.
• I judge on content, not delivery. I am comfortable with most speeds but don't go too fast (not easy to understand).

Brief Background: 1 year in policy, 3 years in pf (2 on the national circuit) for BASIS Peoria, now I am debating Policy for USC.

PF Paradigm:

the short version is: tech over truth but winning the tech of an argument doesn't mean I will vote on it unless it is 1) warranted and 2) weighed. Fascist arguments will never get my vote even if you win the tech sorry not sorry but do better.

Speed is fine (I personally prefer fast and technical debate because I think it is more entertaining and intellectually stimulating, however, my principal philosophy about debate is that it should be totally up to the debaters to decide what they want the round to be like as long as it's not problematic*)

I would like to be on the email chain and I do prefer cards/read evidence in case/rebuttal and then implicated in the second half of the round.

Other things:

I don't really bother keeping a poker face so you'll probably be able to guess if I like/dislike and especially if I don't understand something about your argument based on nonverbals.

1. I care far more about a well-warranted and extended link chain (with 3 minute summaries there really is no excuse) than about which misconstrued impact card has the biggest number. On that same note make sure you front-line AND extend by warrant. I am not prejudiced against magnitude weighing (this is more-so an evidence ethics qualm I have- impacts are often misrepresented), just that I like to know exactly what happens and why it happens when I vote for you. Also if your impact evidence is the same as or at least written with your link evidence in mind (the literature, not your case) I will be more inclined to believe the totality of your impact. Basically, make sure the conditions specified in your impact evidence are the conditions you fulfill within your links.

1.1. I do believe that a conceded link chain grants you full access to the argument HOWEVER I think saying that "probability weighing isn't real" doesn't take into account the fact that the authors of the evidence themselves often speak about the probability of their scenario in context (i.e. an author writing about nuclear war probably uses language to indicate that they don't believe it will be an absolute certainty, but rather a possibility, yet when we cut evidence we usually leave that language out.) As such, I do leave a *little* some room for probability comparison if the analysis is smart and compelling. However, you are probably better off leveraging defense on their link chain if you want to prove their story unlikely.

2. 2nd Rebuttal doesn't NEED to the frontline, but it is probably strategic to do so. IF 2nd rebuttal does frontline, 1st summary probably needs to extend any defense that they wish to be evaluated and should obviously frontline offense (even from rebuttal) if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, 1st summary doesn't need to extend defense because it is still untouched.

3. I am tabula rasa on theory as well as any other type of argumentation. The threshold for me voting on a theory argument is twofold 1)you articulate any abuse/violations that the other team has incurred 2) you articulate why your standards for debate are better for the activity. I will probably not vote on your theory args unless you demonstrate in-round abuse. You can read a shell or paragraph, I don't really care, but I think a shell tends to be technically more easy to follow and probably more strategic as well. Ks are fine as well if you know how to debate Ks. I am familiar with K lit so go wild if you want.

More specifics:

Framework/Meta-weighing matters or else I default to util (though I am very easily convinced util is the debate equivalent of #alllivesmatter)

In terms of tech or truth; treat me as you would a very tech judge in the sense that I will flow all of your arguments and grant you access to an impact if you win and extend the link and impact, but that doesn't mean I will vote on a 5 second blippy extension that's not weighed or implicated, even if it's dropped. If you really think your 5 second turn is good enough to win you the round, it's up to you do strategically allocate your time and convince me that it outweighs.

*overtly problematic ____ist argument will get you yeeted; if you as a debater in the round feel as though something said in the round is problematic and for some reason I'm not catching it (whether because my privilege insulates me or for whatever reason) please feel free to speak up, on time or off, because I believe it is essential that we all work to make debate as inclusive as possible.

I debated PF for 6 years.

I judge off the flow.

I don't flow crossfire, but if something important comes up I will make notes.

Extend your responses and weigh in summary. If you don't extend in summary then I can't count it in final focus.

Answer turns and warrant arguments well.

Give me clear reason(s) why you win and outweigh the opponent.

Do off-time road maps unless your clearly stating where you are in the flow and make flowing easy for me because if I cant flow it then I'm not going to count it in the round.

I am a new judge. I encourage everyone to do the best and keep the rules and maintain right pace while speaking.

Clearly explain the impacts of your contentions, and the internal links within them; the less work I have to do filling in the blanks for your case, the more likely you are to win. Use your summary and final focus to explain to me why your side is winning the debate, don't just use them as extra rebuttal speeches (if I have to go all the way back to both teams' constructives to decide who's winning because rebuttal, summary, and final focus didn't make it clear enough, there's a lot more room for me to think you out of a win). If you don't extend an argument through summary and bring it back up in final focus, I miiiiiight weigh it but even if I do I'm going to weigh it less heavily than if you extended it through summary and final focus. At least frontline responses to turns in second rebuttal. If you want something from crossfire on the flow, mention it in a speech. Speed is fine (make sure to really clearly enunciate names; I can generally figure out a somewhat unclear word, but if a name isn't clear it's a lot harder to figure out from context). Fine with K's. Tech over truth. Don't make your off-time roadmap much longer than "our case then their case" (i.e. "I'm going to weigh our first contention against their second and then..." is too long). Mostly did Congress and Parli in high school (with some LD, briefly), some British Parliamentary in university (don't ask), and I coached Public Forum for a few years. Academic background in Economics.

Hey, if you are reading this then I'm Judging you. So ill give you a rundown on what I like and dislike in debate

Like
- For proper argument to be made in your case. Give me arguments in your case not just counterpoints
- Proper clash, If you are here to debate then actually debate, don't just keep defending your case but go on the offense too.
- I like slow well thought out arguments I want to be able to understand the arguments you are making.
-traditonal debate, please don't bring in a million different theories to debate

Dislikes

-disads, don't care for these for the most part it has to be argued effectively for me to vote for you
- Counterpoint based cases, if you are doing this I won't vote in your favor if your whole case is just counterpoints
- Spreading, if you going to spread chances are I'm not going to understand you and I will probably be missing a lot of your points in the process.
- Lack of clash, if there is no clash then it makes it hard for me to vote.
-Outlandish links to Nuclear War: Just stop doing this, seriously if your link chain is more than 2 deep i'm not counting that as an argument
-Tricks: This will literally get you dropped I don't care, we debate in debate nothing more nothing less

- If your case is off topic then I probably will just not care.

- Any arguments that attack groups of individuals based on RACE, GENDER, SEXUALITY, ABILITY OR DISABILITIES, or have any stigmatized arguments I will drop you and once I hear it I will be giving you a loss. I have no patience for this and will ignore any other argument you make.

Hey everyone!
First off, congratulations on making it here, the amount of prep work that it takes to enter a round is beyond insane.
I'm a student judge who has experience with PF internationally and Policy nationally. Please be respectful in your rounds and try not to get personal. As a debater, I'm okay with a bit of spreading but please be mindful of your pace, if I can't understand you I won't be able to judge you fairly.

All this being said, all the best and have a great time!

Flow your strongest arguments through the debate while properly rebutting and frontlining. At the end of the debate, win in weighing.

General

Well explained complete arguments will be evaluated regardless the argumentative style.

An argument has a claim, warrant and impact in the speech it was introduced.

Hidden arguments that need to be dropped to win = No.

Impact turns are good.

Theory

Default Reasonability and Drop the Argument on theory. Competing interpretations on Topicality.

Conditionality is infinitely good. Setting an arbitrary number at which conditionality becomes "too abusive" does not make sense. This is probably my strongest opinion, but the 2nr needs to answer it like any other argument. If arguments are dropped or otherwise mishandled, I will vote for conditionality bad.

I tend to lean Aff on international (or non-resolution actor) fiat, and Neg on everything else. Most theoretical objections to counterplans are better resolved via competition.

Theory is almost never a reason to reject the team. "The 1ar is hard" does not change my mind.

Nothing is a reverse voting issue and talking about grammar is not racist. These arguments deserve no more than 10 seconds, but you should probably still answer them.

Teams usually do not explain why their independent voting issue is either independent from other arguments, or a voting issue, which makes these arguments difficult to vote for.

I don't think about KvK debates or how competition works in these debates. Maybe okay for the Cap K, probably awful for everything else.

Critique

Critiques on the neg should not rely on a framework argument. If you make one, the framework argument must be in the 1nc. I have no problem voting Aff because I don't know what you said. Win that the critique turns the case and outweighs it.

The plan team should almost always go for framework and case outweighs, or impact turn the critique. You still need to answer negative arguments, especially if they have a link to the plan.

Fiat illusory, fiat double bind, pre-fiat, and anything else that has to do with fiat will not win debates in front of me, even if dropped.

Debate bad arguments are unpersuasive and I'm very persuaded by arguments that debate, in fact, is not bad.

Philosophy

Partial to Epistemic Modesty and Comparative Worlds. You could probably persuade me to use Confidence and probably can't persuade me to use Truth Testing.

A high probability extinction scenario will be prioritized.

I would rather you read cards from philosophers, instead of reading unwarranted analytics to save time.

Congress: My son has been competing in Congress for the past 3 years at The Bronx High School of Science. I know the format well. I also had the pleasure of meeting many Congressional workers from across the country, so I have some real world insight. 

First off, I like a good PO from what I've seen. If you PO well, you could T3 very easily in my ranks. If you PO badly, you'll be dropped on my ballot. It will be hard to receive a six from me in your speech scores. I appreciate all varieties of speaking but do not yell at me. You are emulating actual Congresspeople and all arguments are respected. My own political affiliations will not affect you, we all do have biases, but I will uplift the code judges should abide by and remain neutral.

REHASH WILL LEAD TO AUTO DROP. REFUTE, please. Thank you. On the basis of confidence and speaking anxiety, I prioritize content first and then presentation. However, when giving a speech always remember the two go hand in hand. If your presentation lacks, do not expect your rank to be as high as you'd want it to be. 

Do NOT try to be funny if you know are not going to be ABLE to pull it off, certain jokes can hinder you. If you are funny, I appreciate a nice comedian. 

PF: Please speak slowly, I am a lay judge and cannot listen to very fast arguments. I look for a good clash, and I also like to see warrants and claims extended throughout the end of the round. Best of luck everyone! Please do not attack on basis of political affiliation, race, and gender.

Signpost and let me know where around we are/present. I wish to see that everyone is doing the best job they can throughout the course of the debate. The debate can be fun, but it can also be harsh, so please do not be let down if another team is seemingly beating you, there is always ground to recover.

During the round, I will have my camera and mic off and I will observe. Please do not take longer than needed to get started, I will not provide verbal RFDs, but instead a comprehensive online one.

Thank you,

Sumajit Paul.

Technically a senior on leave from Harvard, I debated 4 years in Public Forum for The Dalton School.

For 1st Speakers:

During Constructive: Please make eye contact with me during your constructive speech. You have ideally read your own case at least 2 times before round, so I want you to at least try to make a personal connection (i.e. genuinely try to sell me on your case).

During Summary: Please start boiling down your points. I want you to start weighing during this speech, and tell me how you're winning.

If you go for every single point in the round, you will lose 0.5 speaker points. Your job is to start condensing it for me. Also, don't just do it for me; as a former 2nd speaker, I remember how much easier my job became when my 1st speaker would deliver a very clear and effective summary. So, please do it for your partner, too!

For 2nd Speakers:

During Rebuttal: Please start out with an overview, explaining why I should listen to your framework / overview over your opponents, not just telling me why your framework is valid.

If you're the 1st speaking rebuttal, just go down their flow. Don't just dump evidence; you could read me all the evidence in the world, but I want you to provide me with the logic behind such arguments. Explain any turns you may make clearly.

If you're the 2nd speaking rebuttal, I want you to not only go down their case, but also respond to any turns your opponents make on your case.

During Final Focus: Write my ballot for me. Do this, and you will win. Explain to me what arguments you are winning on; hammer in on things I should extend in the flow and explain to me why they're important. Don't just read me evidence I should extend, or else I have no justification for doing so. Anything that you say in final focus that wasn't mentioned in summary will be ignored.

General Stuff:

1) PLEASE SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow, or else I will be lost, which will be very frustrating.

2) I don't actually flow cross, so please provide crossfire analysis at the beginning of subsequent speeches if you want anything said during cross to be weighed in the round (concessions, turns, logic explanations, etc.).

3) Any disrespectful or racist, sexist, inappropriate, etc things said in round will lead to an automatic 25 speaker points or less, and depending on severity, may even lead to an automatic win to the other team.

4) At the end of the day, it's just a debate round where you guys are arguing a topic you've spent hours researching. Have fun, WEIGH, and enjoy!

Experience:

I'm a parent judge. I do not have much experience judging PF. Please speak slowly and clearly. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you.

Hey, I am a parliamentary debater from Harvard. Please be respectful at all times to both me and the team you are going against. Please don't run theory. I am fine with any speed of talking and I do not value evidence that highly.

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

I judged in Public Forum for the 2022 Harvard tournament, 2022 NCFL nationals, 2023 metro finals, and several local tournaments before and since then. I am a semi-retired (after 40 years) lawyer specializing in litigation.

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have recently completed my undergraduate degree in political science where I participated in various governmental simulations (i.e. Model United Nations and Canadian Parliament Simulations). I have also been a member of Toastmasters since 2019, which is an international nonprofit educational organization that operates clubs worldwide for the purpose of promoting communication, public speaking and leadership. I have been an adjudicator mainly for Public Forum, British Parliament, and Canadian National Debate styles. For the most part, I tend to approach debates with a very pedestrian perspective since I am still relatively new to the world of debate. Regardless, these are a few things I like to see throughout a PF debate:

1. Speed is okay with me as long as I can clearly hear your words.

2. If possible, I also appreciate clearly seeing the speakers fully on the screen. I really appreciate it when speakers have "stage" (or rather, "zoom") presence (a.k.a, great use of ethos), but I understand if there are technical difficulties that would get in the way of this. Above all, I would never let this have an impact on the final outcome.

3. Arguments should be perfectly clear with a detailed and original analysis.

4. Arguments should be soundly and irreparably clashed.

5. Speech structure should be clearly laid out at the beginning and followed to the letter, ensuring that speeches finish exactly as the timer expires with no second rushed or wasted.

6. I really love when the speech is fluent and it's an added bonus if the speaker shows a wide range of vocabulary and idioms. Furthermore, the speaker can also use wit, tone, and volume to appropriately emphasize arguments.

7. Overall, clarity is key. I like to remind debaters to remember the public in Public Forum. Imagine that you're trying to convince the general public.

8. I encourage debaters not to feel intimidated by me because it's quite honestly the opposite!

Hello! I am a LAY parent judge from Newton South. My name is Darya Priklonskaya. It’s a pleasure!

Because I am a lay judge, I would appreciate it if you guys would speak a little slower and clearer so that I can understand. Pretend like I know almost nothing about the topic.

Warranting and explaining specific terms relating to the topic would also be nice.

Also, do not assume I know debate jargon; therefore, please put it into simpler terms if possible.

In general, just keep in mind that part of my voting will depend on how well I understand a team’s argument. Even if a team might have had great points, they will not go into my final decision if I do not understand them.

Moreover, PLEASE signpost to make flowing for me easier. It will only benefit you.

Also, please do not weigh on morals. You can have different impacts obviously, but as an example, if one team had an impact of 15 billion dollars and another team had an impact of 1 billion lives, don’t say something like, “you would be saying a life is 15 dollars if you vote for them judge”, instead just say “lives are irreplaceable, therefore our impact is more important”, you guys get the point.

Lastly, please be courteous to each other and show respect.

I know I said a lot about my criteria, but at the same time, if the feeling that someone is judging you stresses you out, try to at the same time pretend like you are debating each other, and I am just a bystander.

That’s all! Have fun debating guys and do not stress it! There are plenty of tournaments to come!

Debated four years (2017-2021) on the national circuit for Montgomery Blair. Read what you want and debate how you want—I'll try my best to adapt to you.

Some specific things:

1) Be nice.

2) Dislike underdeveloped arguments. I will only vote on arguments I understand as they are explained in the round.

3) Time each other and don't steal prep.

4) Cool with post-rounding.

Happy to answer any questions. Best way to contact me is via FB messenger (Eli Qian) or email (edu.eqian at gmail dot com).

My general philosophy is run whatever you want, do it as fast as you want, just be clear. I will vote on just about anything except racist, sexist, homophobic etc arguments.

Here are a few notes about how I evaluate arguments:

Topicality -- I vote on it. I do not have any "threshold" for topicality -- either the aff is topical or it is not. That said, for me in evaluating topicality, the key is the interpretation. The first level of analysis is whether the aff meets the neg interpretation. If the aff meets the neg interpretation, then the aff is topical. I have judged far too many debates where the negative argues that their interpretation is better for education, ground etc, but does not address why the aff meets the negative interpretation and then is angry when I vote affirmative. For me if the aff meets the neg interpretation that is the end of the topicality debate.

If the aff does not meet, then I need to decide which interpretation is better. The arguments about standards should relate 1) which standards are more important to evaluate and 2) why either the negative or affirmative interpretation is better in terms of those standards (for example, not just why ground is a better standard but why the affirmative or negative interpretation is better for ground). Based on that, I can evaluate which standards to use, and which interpretation is better in terms of those standards. I admit the fact that I am a lawyer who has done several cases about statutory interpretation influences me here. I see the resolution as a statement that can have many meanings, and the goal of a topicality debate is to determine what meaning is best and whether the affirmative meets that meaning.

I will listen to critiques of the notion of topicality and I will evaluate those with no particular bias either way.

Theory -- Its fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Disadvantages and counterplans are fine. Although people may not believe it, I am just as happy judging a good counterplan and disad debate as I am judging a K debate. I have no particular views about either of those types of arguments. I note however that I think defensive arguments can win positions. If the aff wins there is no link to the disad, I will not vote on it. If the neg wins a risk of a link, that risk needs to be evaluated against the risk of any impacts the aff wins. Case debates are good too.

Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less pursuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments.

Non-traditional affs: I am open to them but will also evaluate arguments that they are illegitimate. I think this is a debate to have (although I prefer juding substantive debates in these types of rounds). I tend to think that affs should say the topic is true in some way (not necessarily a plan of action) but I have and will vote otherwise depending on how it is debated. I do remain flow-centric in these debates unless there are arguments otherwise in the debate.

Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace (ie, no spreading). I expect every argument to have a clear evidence point and be linked properly. If you want me to buy your impact, I need a clear link. I’ll be paying attention to how you engage with the other teams arguments and weighing them against yours. Please be sure to carry all arguments through, so don’t drop points! If you don't respond to your opponent's refutation of your point, I'm assuming that you're dropping it. I'm a flow judge with experience in most debate formats, so I can keep up with you.

Most importantly, have a respectful and enriching round.

I understand that there are debate time limits, but you need to speak slowly enough that we can understand you

clearly.

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

Was in PF for 3 years and I competed on the local and national circuit. Flow judge.

I will always evaluate the framework first and then look towards who best provides offense under the framework. PLEASE COLLAPSE, going for everything in round takes away from your ability to provide a narrative for your arguments. I will only vote on an argument if it’s present in both summary and final focus. That means extending both the warrant, giving a detailed analysis, and the impacts of the argument. Extending card tags alone is not enough. Most importantly, Weigh. If neither of the teams weigh, I’ll be forced to intervene and determine what I think is more important, which you might not necessarily agree with in the end. On a final note, I'm a stickler with evidence, meaning I appreciate evidence that explicitly says what it is that you are trying to communicate in the round; I appreciate logical analysis as well, but there are some instances where having both may serve to benefit you. Probably didn't cover everything so feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

Hello Debaters!

I am excited to be your judge today!

I'm a parent judge, and below are a few things I'll be looking for in your debate

• Clear articulation
• Team balance
• Convincing arguments
• Respectful language - I don't like aggression

Treat me like a flay judge.

All the best and looking forward to your debate!

When debating, I evaluate based on the preparation and organization of arguments presented by the competitors. When introduced with an attack on one's position on the topic, it is important that a rebuttal in defense is provided both to protect one's validity and remain as an active participant in the debate. Maintaining one's composure while still displaying an extent of passion for the topic will also be accounted for when deciding each competitor's status. An additional idea to keep in mind is make sure to speak coherently and at a reasonable pace so I can feasibly listen to the details within each debater's argument. As this is my first time judging debate, I must notify competitors that I have no understanding of debate jargon; so, please speak to me in terms that I understand, thank you!

Add me to the email chain: rohithraman4@gmail.com

he/him

Tufts 25, I debate in college, but also like not really

Top Level stuff

As a first year out, I haven't had much of any experience judging and my thoughts on debate aren't set in stone or insanely clear - I'm also not an great flow, especially online

Read whatever you want - if you're clear and fully fleshing out the args then you should be fine.

With that said, I have almost exclusively invested in k debate throughout high school - if your ideal 1NC is 6 off policy strat, then pref me much lower

The 2NR/2AR should frame my decision - how do I think about the args, what comes first and why etc - judge instruction will be rewarded and just makes decisions easier

Most of the time, tech over truth – however, I won’t vote for an arg just because it was dropped. Impact it out

Don't be a shitty person - understand how you interact with spaces like debate and change accordingly. I’ll stop the round if there’s anything racist, sexist, homophobic etc being said – goes without saying

Disclosure is good.

Notes this year - go a little slower than you usually would and record speeches in case someone cuts out if it's online. I also know very little about the topic, so limit the amount of topic specific jargon you use

Fw

Neg ---

I approach fw from the point of the broader vision each team has for debate. What discussions are you forwarding, and how do I differentiate between the two? What vision does your model have for engagement, or does that come secondary to another impact?

You are more likely to get my ballot if you explicate the end point of your model. For example, I find discussions of clash to refine political strategies or create better advocates as a much more persuasive argument than keeping clash to simply “preserve the game”. Going further and explaining why certain things matter will help a ton. A 2NC/2NR that is able to win an exportable impact and argue how it gets better throughout the year alongside some aff offense through either SSD or TVA is in a great spot

I find it shocking that a ton of fw teams will go through rounds without mentioning any specific stuff about the aff – engage with the aff

creative interps, standards, and answers are ALWAYS preferred - diversify how you approach each aff – you don’t always need to read t-usfg

Do I think procedural fairness is an impact? No. Especially if there's no actual explanation on it - you should be talking about what the unfairness looks like in round, examples of your inability to engage etc. I prefer deliberation, skills, clash based args as opposed to fairness because it gets to the question of why this matters. Fairness debates end up becoming a question of their external net benefit like clash or education, so starting there just makes more sense to me but you do you

SSD and TVA – These should be areas of the debate where you can most easily access aff offense. Most aff teams don’t know how to answer SSD, but you need to explain what reading on the neg would look like etc. The TVA doesn’t need to “solve” the aff, but I do think they need to be able to include most of the aff’s discussion somehow, especially if the aff has reasons why that discussion matters. Most neg teams will simply say the TVA doesn’t need to solve and move on, which isn’t sufficient

Don't just forget case - a significant case push makes neg ballots way more viable - most k affs don't do anything so go for presumption please

Aff ---

I tend to lean aff in these debates, but make sure there isn't ambiguity over what the aff does / you clear it up quickly – I’ll vote on presumption for sure

Just explain why the end point of their model causes [aff impact] + why that’s bad and you should be good. I personally think impact turn strats are much better because focusing on a counterinterp often forces the aff to find more common ground than offense. Regardless, decide what strat you want to go for and stick to it.

I love DA’s that target both form and content of fw

Crafty counterinterps are always great

You have to have some sort of topic link – use that to your advantage because that should be the crux of your fw answers

k stuff

General ---

I primarily read Afropessimism, Black Nihilism, Baudrillard, Semiocap/James, and Settler Colonialism, but I’m familiar with most ks in varying degrees. Regardless, nuanced explanation of the theory is important

I'm fine with debaters reading stuff outside their subject position but that requires an understanding of how your identity relates to the arguments you read and sometimes a change in the way you read the arg - whether thats how you approach talking about instances of violence or the alternative you read -- (opponents should always push on these kinds of questions) -- Its clear when a team has thought through their relationship to the scholarship and when they haven't

I'm fine with longer overviews, but I think its way more strategic and easier to flow if they are shorter - do your work on the lbl

I really like smaller k's or piks (that actually have strategic benefit)

K v policy ---

Framework is probably one of the most important part of these debates to me because it determines how I view literally everything else – if you are winning fw, I don't think an alt is needed as long as you are framing stuff correctly

"Generic links" are fine, especially if there is a broader fw push, as long as you are getting specific when extending them. Obviously, the more specific the link, the better. You should be giving me examples and pulling quotes when extending the links

K v K ---

These can be some of the best debates if well executed.

Methods need to be explained - what does the alt do? What does the aff do? You should be spending time here, include examples, quotes, etc – I think the alt should be resolving either the impact to the links and/or the aff, but if you want to go for it as a non-unique da then I need significant offense on case

That being said, explain perms fully - you should be doing more than simply showing an ideological similarity between both authors/lit bases. What does the perm look like in application? Again, examples are really helpful – I tend to lean aff on the question of no perms in a methods debate – it’s a standard for competition that tests the legitimacy of the links, but I also agree that most perms in these debates make zero sense

Theory of power stuff can get pretty muddled - make it clear - you don’t auto win if you have a better theory of power, but it helps

Policy stuff

I'm not your judge for the 8 off debates, but I'll do what I can if I’m in the back. I would much rather you limit the cards read in the block and use more analytical arguments rather than card dump – either way, make sure there is actual engagement

T ---

Default to competing interps,

More specific interps are better, but these debates can get really confusing and annoying - just explain things like definitions or what the interp looks like fully

Having case lists and describing what debates would look like under each model is always helpful

Cps ---

Try to have some explanation about what the perm looks like outside of perm do the cp in the 2ac

I don't really care about judge kick - if the neg doesn't go for it then I'll kick it but if you want to go for it as offense then sure

DAs ---

I mean just extend it properly and have offense that o/w – its pretty straight forward

Random theory stuff ---

I hate these debates - most of the time nothing is really abusive – if the 2ar goes for theory, it has to do the work of comparing its impacts to the stuff that the 2nr goes for

Other stuff

CX is really important and I flow it - just don't be rude / unnecessarily cut people off

Recutting ev is always persuasive – you definitely can get offense from unhighlighted parts of cards

Make me laugh

For LD/PF, the closer you are to policy the better.

Good Luck Debaters,

I look forward to listening to your debate.

It will help me to listen well and make decision if you could

- speak clearly, slowly

- demonstrate team work within your team

- respect your opponent team

- show passion towards your case through precise arguments

Hi! This is her daughter! My mom is a typical lay judge whose main focus when choosing the winner is on HOW you speak (a.k.a DELIVERY OF SPEECH).

She listens to the quality of responses > quantity and also flows down which responses you extend through final focus.

Have fun! :))

I debated for three years in Public Forum at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts.

General Stuff:

• I am fine with most speeds. However, I definitely prefer the round to go at a moderate pace and I will not tolerate spreading.

• I like to think that I am tech>truth. That said, there is an inherent tradeoff with my threshold for responses on ridiculous arguments.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I do not think progressive arguments (Theory, K, Breaking Speech Times/Meta, etc.) belong in PF so I will not judge those types of rounds. On the other hand, if there is some outrageous violation, warrant the issues in a speech and I will probably give some credence to it if it is true. Just don't read like a full-blown shell on me.

• I default Neg but am willing to hear warranted arguments about why I should presume the first speaking team.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and I might make some heinous decisions.

• I also believe that weighing comes in tiers: you need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.

• I also love teams who use impact clarity well! Use it correctly, I often see this "weighing" mechanism done poorly.

Things I Do Not Like:

• I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments but I will have a super low threshold for responses and your speaks will likely reflect this.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

Hi thanks for looking at my paradigm.

- I am a fairly new judge

- I am not familiar to debate terms

- Please don't go too fast

I am fairly generous with speaker points.

I will most likely give you (28-30)

I do not tolerate disrespect please keep this debate clean.

Generally looking for speaker/participants broader understanding of the topic and belief in the argument being presented.

Secondly, attentiveness to the opponents arguments, display the understanding and specifically counter those. And defending and building your case.

Finally, for my understanding, please send your first speech to my email: vikreddy2022@gmail.com

Parli debater at Harvard. No theory, please!

Hello, I am not judging at Harvard 2022, if you get me on tabroom for R1, there is a mistake. I have already emailed tab. you will get a new judge shortly.

(3:34pm)

GLHF

__________________________________________________________

he/him/his

For HDC: Please be mindful of rhetoric when responding to race and structural violence arguments;

to summarize my paradigm: a dropped argument is true, collapse, and please weigh. I will not evaluate any new arguments brought up in second final focus, in fact, summary is a little to late to be reading new defense. If its in ff, it must be in summary as well. Also, if you are first rebuttal, I would prefer that you don't go over your own case as no one has responded to it yet. Additionally, there is no need to tell me if the framing is CBA/util.

Also TIME YOURSELVES and also TIME YOUR OPPONENTS. sometimes im not looking at my stopwatch so its on you to keep your opponents honest.

If you go over by 30+ seconds and I have to cut you off, I will dock speaks.

For Online Debate:

Please turn on your cameras.

____________________________________________________________________________

Debated 4 years on the national circuit at Cranbrook in MI. Currently a sophomore at Carnegie Mellon (statistics & machine learning)

Email chain: harry.jia.ren@gmail.com

General

-Speed is fine but don't spread, I'll clear you if needed.

-Roadmap and signpost (i guess if someone else in the panel hates roadmaps, then you don't need one)

-A dropped argument is a true argument (if its extended properly)

-Any offense needs to be in both sum and FF. Extend warrants and impacts too, not just author names and tags.

-Please collapse

-Theory is fine if its used to check back real abuse. I default to competing interps/yes rvi. I will evaluate K's but I am less confident with my ability to handle them properly(I've only ever done PF). No tricks.

-I presume whoever lost the toss unless you give me reasons to do something else

-Trigger warnings are necessary

-I am personally not a fan of probability weighing. If you win the links, then the probability is high...

Rebuttal

-2nd rebuttal must Fl turns.

-My threshold for responses against second rebuttal offensive overviews will be low.

Second half

-First summary should extend defense. you don't have to go for everything, just one piece of dropped TD is enough.

-Weighing must start in summary.

-All offense must be weighed

My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.

I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.

Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage

Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.

Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.

Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.

I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.

For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf

Hi my name is Ria, I competed in Policy, PF and Lincoln-Douglas for four years in high school. I've been judging policy, LD, Congress, PF and Parli since then. Ive judged for WACFL, VHSL and for several CA HS debates so far. I've judged every kind of debate, MetroFinals, State semifinals, I've judged up to semi-final elimination rounds (before final finals) in the Debate HS National Championships NSDA Nationals in DC.

Send me your plans before the start of the round I judge you on - this will make me much more able to consider your framework and go through the finer points in your argument. My email is riamerrill@yahoo.com.

Speed

I prefer debaters to speak at about 70% of their maximum speech speed. I do not appreciate spreading at all. So spreading in rounds I highly discourage. It is the debaters responsibility to make sure that I can hear all evidence, contentions, etc. If I didn't hear it, that I can't judge you on a statement that I didn't hear!

Prep Time -

Please let me know at the start of the round if you will take running prep or set minutes at a time between arguments.

Time Keeping - I will keep time for all arguments, but I highly encourage debaters to keep their own time for each argument and also to keep time for their opponents speeches, in order to encourage a nice tight debate.

Arguments.

Come into the debate prepared for the debate. Do NOT ask me for prep time at the start of a debate. You should have done that earlier.

I will always use a reasonability standard in judging arguments. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

I very much as a judge appreciate Cross X's that don't run over time and I judge accordingly on that matter.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round.

Please do not make a case without backing that up with strong evidence and examples. That just depresses me in a debate frankly. That ruins the framework of an argument on a case Aff OR Neg for me.

Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you go ahead and run them.)

I enjoy a substantive debate that has real clash versus ill formed half baked ideas or ill-linked impacts

I appreciate weighing mechanisms where you explain to me why I should weigh your impacts over your opponents.

Rudeness and i.e. talking over your opponent when they are already speaking first, will lose you speaker points.

Overall I really value clear logical presentations of your case, the clearer and more logical your framework, the stronger your case is likely to be.

I do not get much out of hearing information repeated multiple times over and over in a round. Keep your arguments fresh!

I appreciate when debaters give me voters during the final speeches in a round.

Speaker Points

I judge primarily between 25-30. I have given a 21 to debaters who neglected to bring laptops or any evidence in a debate and just spoke extemporaneously in a policy round before. I have severely penalized a debater who referred to Africa as a country 6 times in a speech. Africa is not a country!

I VALUE clear speech and a minimization in speeches of sentence fillers such as Ahhhs and ummms. Language fluency and flow is highly valued to me as a judge in terms of rewarding speaker points.

25 is a problematic round, with gaping flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, patently incorrect information cited, or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a milquetoast round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management on presenting the case in the context of argument times, or in language fluency and flow in speeches, which makes understanding or believing the case much more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no glaring mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent apparent errors fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, or made a few minor mistakes in speech which were not repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices and strategies well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which very fast speaking speed often creates.

Judging style

In a debate, I strongly look toward framework, impact analysis and evidence to support claims. I very much value specific statistics to make a claim over a general statement.

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” —Christopher Hitchens - I met him in Beirut in grad school in 2009. We went out for cocktails after he gave a speech to my grad school class at the American U of Beirut. Then a very happily tipsy Hitchens decided to go out running like a banshee late night through the Beirut streets and then decided to rip down a poster of an SSNP (Syrian Nationalist Party) slogan, apparently within sight of some SSNP nationalists, and he was promptly beaten up by a bunch of Syrian Nationalists in Beirut that night. I always feel bad about that one, if Hitchens had had just listened to my advice that he stay at the bar, that beating by SSNP thugs wouldn't have happened. Hitchens was dead 2 years later. RIP.

Counterplans

I'm fine with counterplans if its a tight, cogent counterplan that is topical to the debate round.

Virtual Debate

Please stay in the frame of your camera during the debate. Share me on your plans - add me to the email chain - riamerrill@yahoo.com

.I look forward to when I get to judge a really excited, clashy debate!

Name: Mehedi Hasan Rifad

School Affiliation: Military Institute of Science and Technology

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: less than 1

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: less than 1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: less than 1

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: less than 1

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? I'm not a coach

What is your current occupation? Student

My opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Not too fast cause greater persuasion won't be achieved if you talk too fast.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Big picture but don't generalize opposition's case. You still need to engage with their each and every arguments.

Role of the Final Focus: Persuading the judge why your team wins.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Will be counted until the final focus.

Topicality: The most important thing.

Plans: Specific plans or models are not required.

Kritiks: Try to engage with the opposition's best case.

Flowing/note-taking: Hugely important so that you don't miss out important things.

I value argument more but I also notice the style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in my opinion that argument has to be extended in the rebuttal because summary speeches should focus on the summary of the debate.

If a team is second speaking, the team should answer to it's opponent's rebuttal first in the rebuttal speech. If they have enough time after that, they can cover the opponent's case as well.

I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire.

I would judge the debate as it was. So, try to engage with the opposition's case more and make the debate easier to judge.

I'm a recent PhD from Binghamton University in Political Science (pronouns are she/her). Research focus is in American Politics (identity and pol behavior in particular) but you can safely assume I have at least average substantive knowledge on the topic even if it isn't americanist. I'm currently working for the intelligence wing of a company focusing on the digital economy. I was an extemper, normally judge PF and LD (or parli congress), occasionally judge speech. I'm comfortable with circuit debate, but not super involved anymore.

Update for virtual nat circuit: take the spread from an 8 to a 6.5 , share your case doc, slow on theory. When you aren't sharing a doc, don't spread. If I don't catch it, it won't go on my flow.

Add me to the thread: tara.s.riggs@gmail.com

LD

- I can (and frequently do) hate your arguments but still vote you up on them. You need to have a legitimate warrant and be reasonable, but you need to win the flow and some times that means winning on greyhound racing in space or something absurd. I'm inclined tech>truth but warrants still matter when I weigh rounds.

-I've grown to really appreciate a good K. You need to be really explicit in the argument. I am familiar with the lit on feminism/identity/racism, but I am an empiricist at heart not a political theorist. The more obscure your K is, the more your explanation and depth matters. I won’t vote off of theory that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. If you can't explain your K, you shouldn't be reading it. I'm most familiar with identity based K's and set col.

-If we end up together and you are dead set on running a CP, don't make it a PIC. I will not evaluate it. I won't flow it. You just wasted x amount of time. PICs are inherently abusive. This is the one place I will intervene on the ballot.

-I like theory rounds.

-I also like Theory rounds.

PF

- I flow but I am more relaxed on tech>truth. I am more inclined to believe an impactful truth than blippy tech. Don't consider me tech>truth if your plan is to run spark or argue climate change/ extinction/economic collapse good.

- I need to see a strong link level debate. You NEED to materialize your links if you want to access impacts. Don't make me question the links.

- Make your impacts clear. Often times, rounds come down to impacts.

- Plans and CPs in PF are inherently against the event( and against NSDA rules). I will not flow them. You may win them, but I'm not flowing it and will not consider it in round. Strike me if this is your strategy. PF isn't Policy.

- I like K's but stock K's are lazy. Don't run a capitalism K just to run a capitalism K. If you are running K, you need to be able to explain what happens if the alt is true. Weigh whether or not you want to spend the time on the K given how short speeches are in PF.

- First summary should extend defense- but does not need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, first summary MUST extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

-I do not flow CX-anything that comes up in cross-examination that you want considered in the round needs to be mentioned in your speeches.Don't be rude in grand cx. That's my one problem with gcx. I have given low point wins because a team was rude in gcx.

Parli

-Be strategic. If GOV frames the resolution in a way that makes it impossible to debate, go for theory. If OPP let's GOV slide on something obviously egregious, run with it. I'm looking for the team that best plays the game here.

** If your strategy is to frame the debate where OPP must defend slavery, sexism, homophobia, invasion, etc. I will drop you. There has to be a reasonable limit. I'm non-interventionist until you make someone defend something truly abhorrent. It doesn't show you are a great debater, it shows you are a scuzzy person.

********Live and let debate BUT if you are openly sexist, racist, abelist,xenophobic, homophobic, or insert discriminatory adjective here you WILL lose the round.********

Hi, my name is Syed Hasan Rizvi.

I am a lay judge, but I will pay attention to the content of the round.

Preferences:

- talk at a speed at which I am able to understand you. I understand that you have a lot to say, however it is pointless if I cannot understand.

- try and stay within time

- be polite to one another. I like heated rounds, however rudeness will not be tolerated.

- Take note that I may not be able to understand debate terminology

Have fun!

I am the Speech and Debate advisor at BASIS Chandler. I have some experience with debate, but I'm mainly looking at communication.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision I will ask for it. I care about logic and the strength of link chains. The quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate. A dropped argument will not hold. The speed arguments are delivered is only an issue when words become garbled and unintelligible. Thus, be very careful spreading if you chose that method. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you. It is easier for me to follow a debate when I can see the debaters. Have fun and respect the art of debate!

Hi! My name is Kay Rollins. I am a junior at Harvard University. I competed for the Potomac School in Virginia for five years, where I did extemp (and some Oratory and Public Forum). Here’s what I look for in round:

PF:

Note: PF is about being accessible to the public, and theory is (largely) inaccessible. Please keep all of your points topical to the resolution. I can handle speed, but PF is not policy, so no spreading.

1. Tech>Truth

2. I am a flow judge. If you drop arguments, you lose them.

3. No theory. I do not care if the other team did not have their case on the Wiki. Public Forum argument should be topical to the resolution.

4. Signpost your speeches and weigh your arguments. If you don't tell me WHY your arguments matter, I cannot evaluate them.

5. I don't flow cross-ex, but that doesn't mean I'm not listening. Make that time count.

Extemp:

1. The MOST BASIC RULE of exemp is to ANSWER THE QUESTION. If you do not clearly answer the question, I will drop you. Common pitfalls in answering the question: Changing "how should" to "should" or vice versa, ignoring a comparative in the question (like "Who is best qualified to be secretary of state" requires you to compare people, not just explain why one person is qualified), changing actors (if a question asks you how congress should address an issue, don't tell me what Biden should do).

2. Analysis is much more important than presentation in extemp. Your presentation (fluency, delivery, etc) should not be so bad as to distract from your content, but your content is what matters.

3. No personal AGDs or non-topical AGDs. If the topic is about Syria, don’t compare it to a middle school lunchroom dynamic or a fight with your siblings. Do not compare the war in Ukraine to a Taylor Swift song. However, if you want to make a joke about a real-world event that was funny, that's fair game. Check out r/nottheonion for funny, real news stories.

4. Your points should be distinct (no bleed between points)

5. If you have a point about how we should change something, be specific about what we should change (like a certain law, regulation, etc) and how that would happen.

6. Have fun! Be yourself! RELAX!

For all events (both speech and debate):
1. Have fun, be respectful, and try to make good arguments (or a good performance)

2. Any discriminatory actions/language will result in an automatic drop

Good luck; I look forward to watching your speeches!

If you have any problems, email me at krollins@college.harvard.edu

About me:

I use she/her pronouns. I did PF at Charlotte Catholic all 4 years of HS. Currently I do American Parliamentary Debate at Yale University as a member of the Yale Debate Association. I'm a Ethics, Politics, and Economics, and Global Affairs double major.

Preferences:

-For the love of God please be a good person. I totally get the rage that comes from passion in debate but if you're rude and condescending for your own enjoyment I will happily dock your speaker points.

-Please please please signpost. It gets so messy when I have no idea where you are on the flow.

-Speed is fine with me.

-Second rebuttals need to contain not only responses to opp's case but also frontlines/responses to the first rebuttal.

-Extend warrants/reasoning/weighing. This is really important for a clean ballot for me. If something is dropped in summary then I'm not voting for it.

-Weighing, if theres a massive clash in the round and your don't tell me why I should prefer your arguments/evidence, then it's either a wash or its the other team's.

-I like summaries and FF to mirror each other. Share a coherent message about your side of the round.

-Humor and sarcasm are fun and make the round exciting just don't be rude.

If you have any questions pls let me know :)

Hey my name is Venkat Abhishek Sambaraj and I debated all four years of my high school career at local, state, and national level so I am well experienced with the debate community. I focused heavily on Domestic Extemporaneous speaking and Public Forum but also participated in Oratory, Informative, and Congress. My paradigms are as follows:

Speech: I weigh analysis over presentation, especially in extemporaneous. Presentation is still required but if you provide solid analysis I may be convinced to give you the higher rank. Oratory and informative of course is all about presentation.

Public Forum: Did public forum for three years so I am able to flow and keep track of the round. I like to see clash and please WEIGH, that lets me know what to vote on in the round. Collapsing/crystalizing is important, don't go for every single argument on the flow. Always have frontlines and the second-speaking team should address any attacks made by the opponents. I don't really like to see K's and theories in PF, leave that to LD and Policy. If you ask for a card to be looked at, I will most definitely look at it and if I feel there is a card that's been heavily clashed upon I may request it myself once the round ends. The final thing, when it comes to crossfire ask questions that are relevant and don't be a douche when it comes to questioning. I like aggressiveness but as long as it stays respectful and isn't rude.

WSD: I like to see clash and please WEIGH, that lets me know what to vote on in the round. Collapsing/crystalizing is important, don't go for every single argument on the flow. The logic and the strategy of the round is what I value heavily and how it affects the world rather than individual ideals. No k's theories and things all that because those are for LD so don't be arguing with those strategies. The final thing, when it comes to crossfire ask questions that are relevant and don't be a douche when it comes to questioning. I like aggressiveness but as long as it stays respectful and isn't rude.

Good morning; I am a rhetorician. I look for language/definitions - the burden is on the Aff. Evidentiary support is critical - please ensure sources are recent.

Hi! I'm Amal, a sophmore at Harvard with a background in Congress and APDA. My judging preferences are pretty standard, but here are just a couple of things to keep in mind:

-Please don't spread. If you need to go at a speed faster than one typically talks to get all your arguments through, that's totally fine, but you need to be understandable. If you're struggling to breathe, or are mixing up your words, I likely will not be able to make sense of what you're saying either and can't flow your full argument.

-No theory. If you try to run theory, I will likely vote for your opponents. I expect competitors to be debating on the topic at hand.

-most importantly: WEIGH EVERYTHING YOU SAY. You need to spell out for me why your links and impacts matter more than your opponents, and consistently connect every argument you make back to the main debate.

I competed in public forum debate for 4 years at Poly Prep (2014-2018), coached Lake Mary Prep HM (2018-2019), and currently coach Poly Prep (2019-2021).

Add me to the email chain: hschloss2@gmail.com

Warrant your turns

Do comparative weighing

Tell me why your evidence is better

Bad evidence bad speaks

I am a parent judge for Horace Mann school. After a stroke 10 years ago, I am unable to write/flow in round, so unfortunately the round will be decided in a rather non-traditional fashion. I will do my best to keep track of the arguments you read, and won't intervene (although I will find it more difficult to vote for arguments that I think are particularly ridiculous) but if I can't remember the arguments you read I can't vote for them so CLARITY IS YOUR FREIND!

Don't read theory, k's, tricks, or anything silly obviously because I wont understand it. My stroke also left me rather hard to understand, I will do my best to give feedback in round, but if there is an issue I can also type it up. (My hearing and processing are fully functioning, and most people can understand me if I speak slowly, but please feel free to say if you can't understand me and I'll be happy to repeat what I said, or I will type up some rough thoughts.)

Strike me if you focus more on the technicalities of debate rather than the persuasive elements, you should treat debating in front of me as different than most other judges. Time your prep and your speeches, I obviously can't stop listening, but I may say something if you go egregiously (5-10s overtime), and your opponents should hold up their timers if you go over to remind me.

Good luck, have fun!

I am a lay judge

What that specifically entails:

1. No spreading, no blippy arguments, no theory/K's, etc. Moreover, I put a huge emphasis on presentation skills and the ability to speak well/slow/confidently.

2. I need very very very clear warranting, clear link chains, and clear impact analysis. Assume that I am not super well versed in the topic so explain everything.

3. Absolutely no technical terms as there is a high chance I do not know what they mean. This, once again, emphasizes the need to explain everything.

Email: anik.sen@duke.edu.

I am a lay judge. Use weighing to write my ballot. Ask me questions if you want to know specific preferences.

Auto 29 speaks if you can speak at a conversational speed the entire round.

I am a parent judge and am new to judging. I am also new to the topic, so please explain your arguments thoroughly and avoid jargon.

Please do not spread; speak at a reasonable pace. If I cannot follow your argument, i will not vote off of it.

Please signpost.

Background:

I have been judging debate tournaments for the past two to three years. I do this as my hobby and passion.

Things I like:

- Presentation skills

- Confidence in your speech and delivery

- Well constructed speech along with your introduction and brief about the speech

- Provide proper arguments and evidence/background of your speech

- Be creative with your arguments and speech

Things I don't like:

- I don't like when you speak too fast. You can speak fast but need to ensure that others can make sense of it.

- Can't show up with the evidence when asked for it

- Not able to answer clearly to the point on a question asked you

I have judged a few PF debate tournaments in the past and so I do have some experience. My daughter has been debating for just over two years now at a competitive level and so I am familiar with the layout of the rounds in PF debate. I am comfortable with medium level speed, not too fast, and please speak clearly to ensure accurate delivery of the content. I will flow the debate and make my decision mainly on the strength of the arguments. I expect both teams to be respectful of each other. I have a background in Finance.

Dear debaters,

Welcome to this debate round! As the judge, my role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both teams and determine the winner based on the quality of those arguments. Here are some key points that will guide my evaluation:

1. Clarity and Communication:

• Clear articulation and effective communication of ideas are crucial. Make sure your arguments are easy to follow and understand.

2. Content and Substance:

• Focus on providing strong, well-researched content. Cite sources where necessary to support your claims.

3. Relevance and Significance:

• Arguments should be directly relevant to the resolution and should contribute significantly to the debate.

4. Logic and Reasoning:

• Your arguments should be logically sound. Avoid fallacious reasoning and ensure your points are well-structured.

5. Clash and Refutation:

• Engage with your opponents' arguments. Address their points directly and provide strong counterarguments.

6. Fairness and Sportsmanship:

• Treat your opponents with respect and maintain a courteous tone throughout the debate. Avoid personal attacks.

7. Time Management:

• Keep track of your speaking time and use it wisely. Be sure to allocate time for crossfire and rebuttals.

8. Adaptability:

• Be prepared to adjust your arguments based on how the debate unfolds. Flexibility can be a powerful asset.

9. Impact and Weighing:

• Explain the broader implications of your arguments and how they relate to the overall resolution.

10. Final Focus:

• In your final speech, crystallize the key issues of the round and explain why they lead to your team winning.

Remember, the goal of this debate is to engage in a constructive and informative exchange of ideas. Best of luck to both teams, and let's have a great debate!

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

I am a lay judge who has judged a few PF debates in the past.

Here are my preferences:

Please speak slowly, especially when talking about a major argument. No progressive arguments or theory.

Please provide good warrants and implications. Also, make clear points while weighing and don't use jargon.

I understand that focus is on quality of argumentation and not on speech and delivery.

To make it easier to judge please summarize when possible.

Please keep track of your own time

I don't mind low level interruption and lively back and forth but please don't make it overly aggressive and offensive.

I am a lay judge

I value good speaking and logical arguments

Your arguments should be straight forward, understandable with clear impacts

Eye contact would be nice

Respect each other and good manner are important too

Please avoid debate jargon

Hello,

I am Monali (PhD, Health Economics). I am an enthusiastic parent of a middle school debater. I will look for honest, clear, and concise opinions. Debaters’ mannerism in presenting themselves is important to me. I will give points based on the content, presentation, preparation, organized rebuttals, and background research. I would prefer if the debater can pace themselves and not rush through the content. I can follow a clear speech with decent speed. Speak at a pace that will allow you time to say what you want. Be respectful and sensitive to other team members’ opinions. Use vocabulary that is easily understood with clear diction. And most importantly, learn and have FUN!

I am an international student at Harvard. I have experience in APDA, BP, and the World Schools formats.

I hate intervening. Please weigh so that I do not have to intervene. Weighing must be done on the impacts and ALSO internally within arguments to prove which team accesses impacts more

I appreciate creativity and am happy to hear clever and novel arguments. However, you must actually make logically robust arguments; I do not reward cleverness for cleverness' sake. In almost all cases, raw evidence claims are less persuasive to me than well-reasoned arguments (which can of course be backed by evidence). I find it extremely off-putting when debaters are unnecessarily aggressive to others. Make an effort to be respectful; chances are it will also make you a better debater. I’m fine with speed

I tend to make decisions very quickly, so don't take this personally. Rounds can be very good and very close but still very clear.

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

I am a flow judge and am looking for

1. solid logic and reasoning;

2. strong advocacy of your position;

3. clever usage of your evidence and your opponent's;

4. clear communication;

5. I am open to new ideas and out-of-the-box thinking;

6. and, I prefer dialogue to monologue after the initial phase of constructives.

Good luck everyone!!

Hello, I am a sophomore at the University of Vermont majoring in Chem and Econ and I have debated in the British Parliamentary and Morehouse Social Justice debate styles. Heads-Up: this is my first-time seeing policy forum debate, and this is my first time judging a HS/MS tournament. Best of luck to you all!

I'm a parent judge, first timer here.

Say clearly and articulate your points well.

Please be polite, slow.

Be respectful.

And have fun!

I did PF for four years, graduating in 2021. I qualified to Gold TOC and Nationals and finaled Blake and Harvard my senior year, so I can keep up with most rounds.

Tech > Truth

I'll vote for anything, but there is an inherent burden of proof that needs to be met for me to consider an argument. I won't assume something functions as offense/defense solely because you tell me it does.

I'm not super strict on evidence ethics. I think it's very easy to respond to evidence the way you respond to any other argument, and I encourage you to do so. Paraphrasing is totally fine. It's more realistic, and you have to actually understand the content. I've seen way more evidence ethics issues with cut cards than paraphrased evidence. That said, please still have all your cards cut so evidence sharing runs smoothly. If you take too long, I'll dock speaks. I'll only call for evidence if it's disputed, and I actually need to read it to make a decision.

I have a surface-level understanding of progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.). I understand the basics, but if you read them, there needs to be a lot of warranting. I will not vote for your argument if your warranting is just a bunch of jargon smushed together. Generally, I think paraphrasing is fine and disclosure is good, but I can be convinced either way.

If you're going to read an actual warranted framework, it needs to be read by first rebuttal at the latest. "Offensive overviews" in second rebuttal are dumb, and my threshold for a good response is much lower.

evidence < warrant < evidence + warrant

Cross doesn't matter (I'll still listen), but concessions are binding. Also, please be nice, it's really not that hard.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Conceded defense doesn't need to be extended in first summary (but definitely in FF)

Earlier the weighing the better. I'll allow new weighing in first final if there's no other weighing in the round, but nothing expanding on existing weighing (no new evidence, prereq analysis, etc.)

If you're going to do weighing, please do more than just pointing out that your impact number is larger. Obviously, I'll still evaluate it, but I want actual comparisons between arguments. Weighing impacts on probability makes no sense, please stop doing it. Strength of link means nothing to me if I don't have some kind of metric for comparing the strength of different links and a reason for why I should care about a link's relative strength.

I prefer slower tech rounds. Speed is still totally fine, just remember that the faster you go, the more likely it is that I miss something, and I'm not flowing off a speech doc. If you go fast in the first half, please at least slow down a little in the back half, especially in final focus.

If you don't signpost in summary and final focus, I will have no idea what is going on in the round, especially if you're going super fast and ignoring the line-by-line

I don't flow card names. If you say a card name, you need to tell me what the card says (including when you're extending stuff in sum/ff).

Please time each other. No grace period, finish what you were saying if you started before time was up, anything else won't be flowed

Extend the full link chain + warrants + evidence for whatever argument you're collapsing on in both summary and final focus. I will not evaluate something if it's not in both speeches or you just skip over your entire link story. Please don't make me drop you because you didn't extend something.

Pleeeeeease collapse.

Nothing new in summary or final focus unless it's responding to something new the other team read in their previous speech, except for weighing.

I default first speaking team.

I start at 28 speaks, and I'll go up or down based on how well I can understand you and how well you debate. Debating well with poor clarity warrants higher speaks than speaking clearly but debating poorly. I will probably give somebody a 30. I won't go lower than 27 unless you say something bigoted or are just straight up being mean.

Post rounding is fine. If you really think you won, odds are I missed something because you went too fast, and it was super blippy.

You don't have to call me judge, Arjun is fine and kinda preferred

For email chains, use arjunrsingh333@gmail.com

If you have any other questions, you can ask me before the round. I am willing to change any part of my paradigm if both teams agree (speech times are non-negotiable).

TL;DR

Extend through summary/final focus and weigh to win

hi (:

I'm Kiran (she/ her), I'm a sophomore in university studying IA. I did pf for 4 years in hs but consider me flay

Also feel free to tell me your pronouns and names before the round starts!

Add me to the email chain (kiran70802@gmail.com)

General stuff (I'm pretty basic):

1. I can handle speed, but since we're online (and I'm on college wifi), don't go your fastest.

2. Basic jargon is fine (DL, turn, extend, time frame) but don't go crazy

3. I don't write down card names, stats or warrants yes, but not names, sources, or years so if you mention a card name and don't explain it I'll be confused

4. EXTEND your warrants and impacts (quantified preferably) plz -- if you want it voted on, it has to be said in summary AND final focus. Please weigh!

5. I don't know how to evaluate theory and Ks but if you wanna try you can lol

6. Time yourselves

7. If I'm sus of evidence I won't hesitate to call it, but will do so after the round.

8. Finally, don't be rude and have fun!

Please speak slowly and clearly. Respect for your opposing team is crucial.

I would consider myself a flow judge. I debated policy throughout high school and, while in college, coached a high school debate team that competed nationally. I then took a break for about 25 years and am now judging (mostly public forum) on the high school circuit.

• I'm open to your arguments on how I should judge the round. So if you want to advocate for a particular paradigm, feel free. In general, I do appreciate when debaters do a good job of framing the decision.
• I will flow the round and will make my decision based on the arguments left standing at the end of final focus, and will following the weighing logic presented by the debaters. It's up to you to extend the arguments and weigh them in final focus.
• I really appreciate good signposting. Especially when the debates are online on Zoom, it is much easier to follow when you clearly outline your arguments and help me follow your logic (and your opponent's logic, when you are refuting it) point by point. Organization of your arguments will weigh heavily in my speaker point awards.
• I'm fine with speed if that is your preference, but the faster you go, the more important the signposting to ensure your main points stick out. I will not penalize speed, as long as you speak clearly.
• Please be respectful to your opponents.

Thanks!

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

I'm fine with any arguments so long as they are respectful and not offensive. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to vote. I can only vote on what I hear and understand. I also like to see evidence for the claims made during the debate. I prefer not to intervene, so it's upto debaters to highlight what is important and why I should vote for them.

I'm a PF coach and big advocate of empowering student voice. The fact that you’re here and well prepared is already impressive. It does not matter to me whether you speak quickly or slowly. That's a matter of your own comfort. Be respectful of all in the room. Theory is not my favorite. If it's used in the spirit of undermining your opponents rather than encouraging debate, it won't go over well with me.

Focus on the resolution and your position. Challenges against well intentioned preparation are off-putting and focussing on details outside the round often don’t work for me. If you have triggers to sensitive material, let your opponents know in advance..

I will be impressed by sound research, critical thinking and persuasive argumentation. Outline your intentions and accomplishments clearly. More important than anything is respect for your opponents' and the experience of debating. They will present valid arguments too, so don't tell me everything they said was wrong. Be judicious yourself as a debater and consider arguments that are more convincing in terms of impact. Consider your flow. Concede to their strengths, but convince me that yours have a greater impact. Please weigh your impact in final focus and don’t bring up anything new there. Quantifying an impact is helpful, but only if it comes from a credible source. Please don’t make up numbers.

Use crossfire to clarify any misconceptions. It's not a place to bring up new information.

Call cards only when seeing them will bring true value. Sometimes this is done to stall for time and often that exposes less than stellar evidence. Be careful not to set this trap for yourself.

Ks can work for me when well linked. I need you to spell out the probability of extreme impacts and what chain of events could set them off in an aff/neg world. Be careful with theory. It’s risky and I won’t vote for it unless you prove the purpose makes for a better debate.

Most of all, enjoy, reflect and grow from every debating experience. I will try to give you the best feedback I can to help you learn and grow.

Please add me to email chains of evidence exchange: dsorobey@ssis.edu.vn

Hello! My name is Victoria and I have just graduated from Barnard! I did public forum debate from 7th-11th grade, and for that reason am a flow judge. Make sure to extend your arguments throughout the round, address what has been dropped, and address framework (if one is given). In the final speeches, give me clear voters. Logic and reason are still important to me, so just extending an argument isn't enough: explain your link chain, and convince me! I also prefer that teams keep track of their own time, and don't take too long finding and sending cards.

I was a speech competitor in the '80s and for the last 8 years have been advising/assisting a team of self-directed debaters some of whom attend camps/private coaching. For the past 8 years I've stepped in to judge PF as the team has grown. I'm fine with "speed speaking" as long as enunciation is not compromised. While not new to PF debate, I am not immersed in it regularly, so I suggest not using a lot of jargon/and or acronyms without a one time explanation.

I am a parent lay judge. I will make an effort to flow - please go slower to help me. Please avoid using jargon and debate terminologies. I like clear and concise arguments with evidence, and, rebuttals that respond to the other side without being condescending. I would like to see you compare your impacts and arguments to your opponents and clearly prove why yours are better. I don't vote on crossfires. So if you have something to say about a crossfire, make sure you bring it up later.

Best of luck and have fun!

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

Hello everyone!

Just a caveat:- Speak at a reasonable speed, you do not have to be slow, just keep a pace that any reasonable person would understand.

My judging philosophy is simple; come up with a good structure, logical arguments, short summary speech and I shall consider you.

Debating is, according to me, more of what you present and less of what you know. I do not prefer long extensive arguments. Just come on the stage, give me handful strong arguments, do impact assessment of your points, make a few rebuttals and you are good to go.

Refer to these specific points-

1. Topic knowledge- You need not be scared from an unknown topic, I won’t judge your past knowledge on the topic, and rather I will give weightage to how you interpret it in the round and explain it initially. But, at the same, you may get some brownie points if you insert a fact and impress me!

2. Jargons & Speed- Do not go too fast in order to keep forth all your points and disturb your flow. Either select a sensible number of points or shorten all of them in order to present them wisely. If I am unable to match the speed, you have the chances to lose.

3. Rebuttals- I would love to hear logical rebuttals from you, but even the wacky ones won’t harm. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow, and I’ll really like numbering your responses to things, it makes flowing easier for everyone.

4. Summary- A good summary is what I’ll appreciate. Just be very specific in it; you can also add a couple of new points in it but prefer reiterating the previous ones.

I am not going to judge you on each and every word you speak but make sure, most of them make sense. Be honest, don’t pretend on the know-how and do well.

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round starts.

All the best!

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

This is my third year as a lay parent PF judge.

I am usually familiar with the topics as I am judging tournaments that my daughter participates in, and the AFF and NEG are discussed around the dinner table.

Speed is fine, but I find it much more interesting to listen to people talking rather than listen to people reading out loud.

When using statistics or quoting numbers, please explain why they are important and how they support your contentions and arguments otherwise I usually find those meaningless.

Intense crossfire is great, but please keep it polite and respectful.

GOOD LUCK!!!

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

Dawson '21 in Houston

Tufts University '25

Debating as a Hybrid with Harvard as Tufts

Please put me in the email chain and feel free to reach out if you have any questions about debating at Tufts: mattjstinson2003@gmail.com

TLDR:

pref me KvK>Clash> Policy and give me a card doc after the round

Please do not over adapt to my paradigm. You do you and I will adjudicate the debate to the best of my ability. I always hate when judges strongly inflict their biases into decisions so I try to be as non-intervention as possible. But inevitably, I have some preconceptions and biases about debate so look through before rounds.

In high school, I was a double two going for policy args on aff and setcol and daoism on the neg, but in college I am a 1N/2A reading primarily flex args from across the library

I am a huge fan of argument innovation - make cool and original args and Ill reward you with extra high speaks

I like reading ev but pls do the work for me - if you frame your arguments clearly and basically write the ballot for me you will be far ahead.

Im kinda of a points fairy and reward debaters who are funny and make the debate enjoyable and educational.

Im not the type of judge if your debate style is bullying your opponents or being outright aggressive to them.

Finally, please just be nice to each other. I understand debate can be competitive at times, but try your best to be respectful and kind to your opponents. Problematic behavior, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia, is completely unacceptable and will result in immediate judge intervention to ensure the safety of debaters.

Specifics:

Policy Aff vs K:

I have no strong leanings either way. These are my favorite type of debates to watch and judge. Kinda weird flow choice by me but in one off debates I prefer to flow different parts ie. FW, ontology, perms and links on different sheets so pls give me pen time

I think top level: both teams need to win an instructive claim on what the role of the ballot is and how I should weigh the aff vs the alt or the squo. Framework debating is often underutilized on the high school level and I think in a lot of debates it becomes a wash, which isnt good for both teams

I prefer for links to be to the consequences of the plan, generally, i find links of omission and reps links to not be super strategic. They are winnable but I would like some aff-specific contextualization with fleshed-out impacts and turns case analysis.

I find in a lot of fiat K ontology debates are really reductive and their isnt really explanations from either side about what the implications of their examples are and why is this the case.

I find 2AC shotgunning perms to be annoying and I give the 2NR leeway for new answers if a shotgunned perm suddenly takes on a new meaning in the 1AR. I prefer perms beyond PDB to be explained in the 2ac in like a sentence

Im not the judge for vague alt theory, use it as a solvency takeout instead

I think alt debating is usually pretty bad and isnt explained enough how the alt solves the links. Both teams need to pay heed to this and do more work on this part of the debate

Clash:

I believe FW is a legitimate form of rejoinder against non-topical advocacy. Having read a K-aff and FW consistently in college I find myself to be middle of the road in these debates with no strong leanings either way

Generally speaking, I view FW as a sliding scale. We meet affs will have an easier time while affs that dont engage with the topic theme at all will have a harder time.

My best advice is to choose an angle against FW and stick to it rather than going for a we meet, counter interp, and Impact turn all in the same 2AR.

I believe for me personally debate is a game that has some value outside of debate. I believe fairness is an external impact, but I find clash or skills to usually be more strategic against most K affs

I think for a winning 2NR in these debates I need clear impact explanation, offense on their CI/IT, and a bit on the case page to minimize case cross apps

I am also quite sympathetic to presumption and rejoinder bad arguments and I think sometimes going for case in the 2NR is quite strategic

For the 2AR to get my ballot explain your theory of power, its offensive applications on framework, and win either a counter-interp that is a better model, we meet, or an impact turn to FW

My final thoughts are I appreciate solid case debating. I think a coherent 4-5 minutes on case with both offense and defense to central claims will be way more strategic than a generic cap K

KvK

I lean on the side that the aff gets the perm, but the burden for explanation is higher than we sorta mention x or we would work in solidarity with y. Treat the perm like independent advocacy and explain why it resolves the links and explain how it would function.

I prefer as specific link contextualization as you can get, I think ontology without contextualization arent the best in front of me

Id like more impact comparison on both sides and explain how your theory of power interacts and supersedes your opponents

CPs:

Some of my favorite args in debate are clever process cps or pics. At the same time, my most hated arguments are perennial troll cps like con con or consult nato

2Ns honestly get away with murder with a lot of these shady cps. 2As hold the line on theory and call out these abusive cp texts

I tend to lean neg on condo at 4 options and below, states fiat, and process cp theory and aff on international fiat, condo above 5 options, and consult/conditions cp.

I usually judge kick unless given a reason not to

Theory is usually not a voter unless the 2nr goes for the arg in question (this excludes condo)

ill vote on condo but im also a reasonable person.

DAs:

Generally speaking, the more ev the better

Impact calc and a good cp/case push is key to get my ballot on a da

Turns case is also a good idea

Case

I have a soft spot for squirrelly affs that interpret the topic in an exciting way

Case debating is underrated - 99% of affs can get destroyed if u just do more than the bare minimum to answer them

Case turns are good and you should be reading lots of them in your 1nc

a trend im noticing with policy affs is alot of them read just god awful impact scenarios - neg pls dont drop them or ill be sad

a lot of case debating is just tagline extensions with rly no argumentative interaction - pls give warrants

go for an impact turn on case :)

T:

I tend to lean competing interps.

To easily win my ballot, treat t like a disad and have a coherent story for why your vision of the topic is better than your opponents

Im not likely to vote for bottom of the barrel args like ASPEC or disclosure

if u hide procedurals ima prob not flow it and if i do realize it ur getting a 25

Misc

I'm fine for the death K, wipeout, spark etc.

Go for memes - trolling is an underrated art in debate

I don't like when teams play music in rounds

The older the card, the better - read some ancient texts

I believe the ballot can only remedy who did the better debating- anything else is reflected in speaks

Nba references are much appreciated but don't say you're the Lebron of HS debate

LD:

K>Larp> T/Theory > Phil > Tricks

TBH i dont know how to give speaks in LD so ill prob default to 29.4 and go from there

generally speaking the closer your are to policy the better

I find phil and tricks debates make me want to slam my head into my desk

Ive noticed a lot of lders are borderline unflowable - do pen drills or slow down and be clear

Basically ditto my policy thoughts here

PF

Ditto my policy thoughts - closer you are to policy the better

i have not seen a good k debate in pf and its likely i never will

I have seen some decent theory debates but they are not fun to judge

For PFD, I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. I am a parent Judge with 3 years of experience in different formats, so your ability to pursuade me with your arguments and counter arguments is more important to me than the technical aspects of debate. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate.

For LD, I am a traditional judge, believing LD is not Policy, please stick the tenants that established what LD was and still should be. I am a parent Judge with 3 years of experience in different formats, so your ability to pursuade me with your argumehts and counter arguments is more important to me than the technicial aspects of debate. Reasonable speed is okay, but if it sounds like you are choking when speaking, you are speaking too quickly and those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

I am a lay judge

What that specifically entails:

1. No spreading, no blippy arguments, no theory/K's, etc. Moreover, I put a huge emphasis on presentation skills and the ability to speak well/slow/confidently.

2. I need very very very clear warranting, clear link chains, and clear impact analysis. Assume that I am not super well versed in the topic so explain everything.

3. Absolutely no technical terms as there is a high chance I do not know what they mean. This, once again, emphasizes the need to explain everything.

Please try to make the arguments fact/evidence based. A team can ask for evidence during cross-ex, and please present the evidence after cross-ex. I accept theory too if it is not too far from all of your other arguments. Be confident and good luck!!

I am a parent judge who has spectated over 50 hours of PF training. I prefer quality over quantity as well as clarity over speed.

I am more likely to vote for arguments where you explain why X causes/prevents Y rather than just “Y happens on our side”. Please make all your arguments clear.

I focus more on your arguments rather than how well you speak, but this is only when I can clearly hear your arguments.

Have fun!

Lay judge. First time judging public forum debate.

I have a background in Business and Finance. I will judge based on content.

Hi!

What matters to me most in my room is your capacity to justify your arguments, especially on moral and philosophical points. I also appreciate a rather well structured speech in which the speaker explains their arguments clearly and rather methodically from point A to B. Next, don't be afraid to think outside the box, as I do properly enjoy the occasional interesting take or side on a rather conventional topic.

Good luck everyone!

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- all rounds should set up email chains before scheduled start time. I would like to be included.

--------

Former policy debater in HS and College. I come into LD from that background, and I love seeing where LD and policy are in communication with one another. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, planless K Affs, T, Theory... I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like high phil, a prioris, NIBs, etc. that are more well known in LD.

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I can grasp and understand as a path to the ballot. I don't feel bad saying "I didn't understand this, so I didn't vote on it."

I don't buy into the argument division between "circuit" and "local" debate and that I should inherently discount arguments or styles because it's Alabama not a "national" tournament. Any kind of exclusion needs to be theoretically justified.

Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

--------

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work.

-K Affs: Go for it. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-Theory: Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-T vs Plan Affs --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. If you read a plan that is not whole res then you should always go into the round proving you definitionally are topical. I generally believe analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options. Has the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan? If yes, you have a burden to counter-define in a way that is inclusive of your Aff. I am very persuaded that, absent a sufficient "we meet," if the Aff cannot counter-define a word in the resolution that is inclusive of the plan then I should A] not consider the plan reasonable, even if reasonability is good, and B] no sufficient competing interpretation of the topic, which is an auto-win for the Neg. (K Affs can be an exception to most of this because the offense to T and method of establishing limits is different.)

- T vs K Affs -- Willing to vote on it insofar as you win that you've presented a superior model for debate and that voting for you isn't violent/complicit. I generally believe fairness is not an impact. I like strong answers to meta-level questions, such as Aff descriptions of what debate and proceduralism vs debate as a game/site for unique type of education and iterative testing of advocacies.

-Phil: You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption.

--------

If you choose to not set up an email chain or a reasonable alternative and then waste a bunch of time during the round with, your speaker points will be capped at a 27.5. Debaters saying "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" or, even worse, "I don't want your team to have my arguments" are huge pet peeves of mine. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not sufficient nor time conscious. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

I am a parent judge that has one year of experience. I prefer competitors speaking at medium pace. I prefer people having arguments supported by both evidence and logic. I don't give verbal feedback nor disclose. I will also dock speaker points if you are rude.

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I am an external PF coach for American Heritage Palm Beach/Boca.

Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.

I definitely look at the flow to decide who wins the round, but if I think that something is not handled effectively on the flow (ex: really under-covered argumentation in response to major points in the round), I will likely vote on the truth of an argument.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.

If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!

I love hearing unique arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap unless you are running theory. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!

Please do not ask "I am first speaker, so can I have first question?" Please just assume that first speaker in the round has first question.

Please do not spread! I would prefer if the round is slower so that I can fully understand the warranting of your contentions. I prefer slow, well warranted debates over fast, blippy debates.

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Progressive Debate Rounds:

I am happy to adjudicate progressive rounds, but I strongly prefer adjudicating rounds that engage on substance within the resolution. I will adjudicate progressive rounds purely off of the flow, so all responses must be on the flow. If you run theory please clearly explain your link. For Ks, please clearly explain how the alternative is worse and how voting pro solves.

Hi y'all, I'm Haley (she/her).

I did 3 years of PF and 1 year of Parli in high school.

While I do flow, consider me a flay judge. If anything is too tech-y and you're spreading, I'm not going to follow it.

Be courteous and respectful to your opponents. :)

I have 0 knowledge on this topic so do not assume I know what you're talking about.

Speak slowly and always explicitly weigh. I don't appreciate theory or spreading.

Please add me to the email chain at hotdragontea@gmail.com

Experience: CX for 5 years (Grade 6-10), PF for 2 years (Grade 10-11), World Schools (Grade 12)

Furthest I’ve Gone in Tournaments: Taiwan Nationals Winner/Top Speaker 2015 in CX and Quarterfinals in TOC PF Silver in 2016

Judging Style: I am a flow heavy judge. However, I will only write down what you say and will make judgments based on your arguments only. For example, if your opponent double-turns themself but you don't address it, I will not count it against your opponent. I will only use my own judgment and experience if both sides have equal arguments.

Frameworks: If you have a framework, I will judge based on it. If you have a framework and your opponent doesn't bring up a counter-framework, the debate will be judged based on your framework.

Theory/Kritiks: I am okay with theory but will need you to explain it carefully. Do not play the theory game if you are unable to explain all your links. It is NOT my burden to understand all the possible Kritiks out there. IF I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT I WON'T VOTE FOR IT. It is your responsibility as the debater to explain the K if you run it. I do prefer DAs/CPs to Ks. I’m generally good with Marxism Ks, Feminism Ks, Ableism Ks, and Race Ks (I ran Afro-Pessimism and Afro-Nihilism in the past) but anything beyond these I’m going to need clear explanations about the theory. I also need you to have an impact on your K or else I don’t see a point in it.

LD debaters: Please do not expect me to understand every single theory thing that pops up. I'm comfortable with the basic ones used in CX, but please play safe and pretend I don't know much.

Impacts: It is extremely important to me that your case and arguments have a tangible impact. If the argument is part of a link game, that's fine but the link game must end in an impact. Do not leave me thinking so what? If that happens and the opponent makes a decent counterargument, I'll give it to them.

Speed is fine but please be clear.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Hello debater/s! Carefully check the following details before starting and keep them in mind through the round. First of all, feel free to add me to a chain using: jenrique1712@gmail.com

Quick Intro.

I'm currently a law student. I've been debating since 14. I started judging because I realized that through this method, I could teach the debaters things that I would have liked to know when I was in your position. As a judge, I don't really have any "preferences" of any kind. Nor do I have any problem with any topic that you may want to bring to the debate, as long as it is used as an argument of your case. I do, however, appreciate (and expect) a respectful dialogue during crossfires. Respect each other's turns so we can all hear everyone clearly. I appreciate creative and unique arguments/claims. Other than that, have fun and remember it's all about learning.

Short

- Tabula Rasa

- Tech>Truth

- "Kritik" arguments are ok

- Avoid using "Theory" arguments

Framework

Frameworks are both useful and necessary.

- To keep a more focused debate on a single set of goals, try merging frameworks as long as you both (teams) are able to do so and understand that these frameworks can, indeed, be merged together without losing their nature. In such case where they remain separated (un-merged), try not to stay in the comfort zone of your framework.

- I appreciate flexible frameworks in such way they let you get into the opposites case whilst having clear your own position.

Speech

- You may do off-time roadmaps before any of your speeches. This won't be timed as part of your speech time.

- Please, don't forget to do signposting so I can follow the structure of your speeches with higher accuracy.

- ADVICE: always keep track of your time. As a judge, I'll be taking the time, however, it is important to time yourself, especially during speeches. This way you won't run out of time and won't run the risk of ending the speech without a properly explained impact.

Evidence

Evidence sharing methods may vary according to each tournament policies. There are, however, several details you need to have right on hand when providing evidence.

- Source/author & date; (at least the year).

- Please highlight, in any way possible, from within the document/statistics/study/transcript the specific line/s from where the cited information was taken.

- Also, try to be as brief as possible when searching for the pieces of evidence, keep it below the minute or so. However, remember you can always offer this evidence later.

Crossfires

- As stated previously, my main expectation here is that you both respect each other's turns. Avoid interruptions.

- If you consider an interruption is, indeed, necessary, provide a quick reasonable reason for it. (e.g., "Thanks, that's ok. You already answered, you may now ask a question)

Finally,

Remember to have fun and that, at the end of the day, it's all about learning.

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

Hey everyone,

My name is Jack I’m a junior at Fordham University studying Finance and Econ. I did PF for 4 years in HS and loved it. I’d say I’m pretty flay. I will be flowing but I also value things like crossfire (assuming they still have that) and overall debate perception, that is who it seems won the round. That is an important aspect out of the PF world. I currently do Mock Trial at Fordham, PF is way better. Don’t be a jerk, but also totally okay with calling out opponents out for logical inconsistencies. Looking forward to the rounds!

I'm new to judging Public Forum, having judged Speech for the last four years.

I ask that you speak slowly and clearly. Present arguments/points of view that address your position, supported by an adequate amount of evidentiary citations. Please try to be concise and to the point.

Please avoid a rapid delivery of arguments followed by a lot of citations which will make it difficult for me to follow and understand you. You can be firm and forceful in your positions, but not aggressive in your demeanor.

I debated BP/PF in HS and currently debate APDA/BP.

A couple notes:

1. Don't spread, go as slow as you can. If I can't understand you without a speech doc then I won't flow.

2. On progressive args: I don't have experience with them and don't really understand them, so if you do run them please explain them as you would to a small child, and I will try my best to evaluate.

3. 2nd rebuttal must frontline turns, and I'll look very favourably upon your arguments if you frontline defense as well. Similarly, while defense is technically sticky through 1st summary if it isn't responded to, I will look much more favourably upon your defense if it is present in 1st summary in spite of it. In other words, the more direct engagement from speech to speech the better!

4. Warrants are extremely important. If your evidence doesn't have a warrant I won't evaluate it. If you make good warranted responses to your opponents evidence and they don't have warranted frontlines, I will probably evaluate it.

5. Weighing is also extremely important. If you don't weigh then I have to weigh, but I'm not very good at weighing so you'll probably be disappointed. Therefore please weigh. Additionally, please be comparative in your weighing. Don't just tell me why your argument is important, but tell me specifically why your x argument beats your opponents y argument, and why that matters in the overall debate.

6. Although I do debate, I am only a small child. Therefore, assume I do not know anything more about the world than a small child would, and explain arguments as simply as you can.

7. I am tech > truth, but I have a decently high threshold for proof. That is, from your evidence, you must prove all of the link level analysis that leads to your impact in order for me to buy it. An asserted impact that does not have sufficient analysis will not be evaluated, even if the other team does not respond to it. In addition, although I am open to voting on anything, the wackier the impact the higher the burden of proof is. If you are going to impact extinction, make sure that you provide compelling analysis that it could happen.

8. Have fun :) and best of luck!

I am a new debate judge. As such, I would appreciate debaters not speed-talking so that I can better understand your contentions.

I love debates, but not those where debaters are rude or overbearing. Interrupting is also a dislike of mine.

I am looking for good evidence and a solid explanation and evidence comparison. I will give a lot of weight to the way you argue the evidence.

I am a parent judge with a little bit of judging experience.

The biggest things for me that will help me in my decision:

-Please speak slowly so I can catch everything you are saying

-Lots of signposting so know what you are talking about

-Please don't leave anything unresponded to

-I value evidence, so please make sure to back up your arguments with evidence.

-Weigh your case against your opponents to really sell me on your argument

For evaluating speaks, if you speak slowly, clearly, and coherently you are sure to get good speaks

Please time one everything to make sure the debate goes smoothly

Any form of excess aggression or rudeness will result in very low speaks!

For evidence or case, docs use this email: parisvakili@hotmail.com

In Public Forum Debate, I will prioritize the students' capability in creating further analysis in regards to the facts and materials that they deliver during their speeches. Giving away facts is cool but letting people know the step-by-step process as to how the facts are materialized is even cooler. Rebuttals and responses are better to not be one-liner or "they say-we say" debate, a deeper reason to prove why your opponents are wrong will be more credited. I expect a debate where students are able to cite factual and scientific resources such as journals and papers which has gone through scientific methods and researches rather than newspaper or website, although I wouldn't penalize you just because you cite them because they may also provide important facts and information. The team that wins, would be a team that can provide more tangible examples and facts that may be impactful to us in the future.

1. I will focus only on what I hear in the debate.

2. Speak slow/medium pace.

3. To avoid disturbance sometimes I mute voice...since I take notes sometimes I turn off video so speakers can focus on their thoughts....

4. I look at the entire debate flow and compare both teams....