Hello! I’m debated in PF for 3 years on the nat circuit.

If you don’t have your cases preflowed and make me wait 10 minutes for you to preflow it during the round, I will dock your speaks and be upset at you.

I've been prepping/judging this topic since June – I probably won't pay attention to cross sorry. If I'm not typing, I promise I am listening to your case I just don't need to write everything down

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is erica.chen0328@gmail.comfor the chain.

Safety > everything else. If you make the round unsafe for anyone in the round, you will lose. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. Trigger warning theory is probably an auto-win. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings aren’t needed/are bad.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 210-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I also don’t want to read speech docs. It’s your job to persuade me in the round, not send me your prep. This is to say: if I can’t hear it, then I guess you lose.

Signpost. If you don’t signpost, I might not understand where to flow your response, or what it is responding to. And then I might not understand what is terminal defense/whether you frontlined your case appropriately/where your offense is, which might make you lose.

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Understandably then - please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative and meta-weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). The same extension needs to be in final focus. Same with defense - everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

If you read a frivolous K/theory/trick in order to not have to debate a structural violence argument, I will auto-drop you, give you 27s, and give the opposing team 30s. Then, I will ask the opposing team if they would like to go out and get some snacks and talk about their day.

Similar sentiments on reading prog on novices/young debaters because you know you can bulldoze them.

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed open source. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms. So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. If you’re running ‘card clipping theory’ or ‘they didn’t disclose good enough’ I will probably think you’re a clown. In that case, I will default to reasonability. I am a judge so I actually do get to intervene :) I also won’t vote for first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid.

I learned the basic of Ks and hit a couple in my career;not super experienced with K lit. I’m open to them and will vote for you, just slow down and explain it, please. I do have standards on what Ks I will evaluate.

• Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.

• If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

I do not believe that you should run identity arguments on other debaters of that same identity. People shouldn’t have to debate their own experiences. If another debater expresses discomfort because of this issue in round, I will stop the round and you will lose for making others unsafe.

Frameworks:

Couple notes:

• You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.

• I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good/I want your discourse to go into more rounds, and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round

• Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

• I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.

• My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.

• If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

Other than being awesome at debate (which I’m sure you are) here are things you can do to get some extra points:

• debate well and have fun:))

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.

I am a new judge, but I have been teaching academic writing to middle and high school students for over 20 years. There are many similarities between essay writing and case writing.

Not only do I enjoy a cogent argument, but I also really enjoy a good verbal sparring match. Maybe it's the Irish in me! Many a great debate happened around the dinner table, and we 5 children could argue that black was white as long as we could show evidence for that. A great debate cannot only be substantial in terms of evidence, it also relies on strategic attacks on the opposition.
To mis-quote Sherlock Holmes “the game’s afoot!” Fact and diversion are twinned in a good debate.
I want to hear great evidence and astute attacks, great logic and great use of logical fallacies, strong offence, and brilliant defence.

Show that you know how to employ all of the above appropriately.

I am also a true geek. I collect dictionaries, so dazzle with precise vocabulary, active verbs and attitudinal modifiers.

Finally, talking fast on its own is not a useful skill. I appreciate your need for speed, but please be sure to enunciate, and use good phrasing rhythm, so that I can understand you perfectly. If I can’t tell what you are saying, then of course it will affect my judgement.

Let’s go!

Qualification: I have about 4 years of Public Forum debate and speech experience from my high school years and have judging experience.

Judge Paradigm:

1. I don't mind the general speed of the debaters but please be clear and coherent while speaking.

2. I would like to see an organized and smoothly flowed debate round.

3. Please support your arguments and refutations with thorough explanation and strong evidence.

4. Please make sure to tell me why you think you won the round by weighing out the arguments and refutations during your summary and final focus. Be sure to connect the dots of the round for me by telling me if any points are dropped or still standing.

5. Please do not be rude.

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

Personal Background

I have debated at both the high school and university level for the past 8 years. In high school, I was a finalist at tournaments such as Heart of Europe, Canadian Junior Nationals, and the University of British Columbia. I was also a top 10 speaker at provincials (the equivalent of state) multiple times. I have been coaching students for the last 4 years in Public Forum, World Schools, British Parliamentary, Cross-Examination, and the Canadian National Debate Format.

Scoring Range

I will use the full scoring range allowed by the tournament - expect a score anywhere within the 20 to 30 point range.

What I look for as a Judge

My overarching principle to evaluating rounds is that I can only judge what has been presented in front of me. Therefore, it is completely up to you to explain to me all of the important issues in the round and how your case works to address and resolve those problems. I never bring in my own knowledge or ideas when evaluating the round; however, I am always happy to provide candid feedback after the round as to what I personally did or did not like.

1. I want to make sure that you have very strong logical links between your claims. Assertions are not accepted at face value. If your argument leaves me with a lot of outstanding questions at the end of the round, you have not explained it well enough. It's not my job as a judge to make assumptions and editorialize based on where I think you are going, it is your job to explain each argument and piece of rebuttal to me as if I have the knowledge of an average person.

2. Evidence does not make an argument. Evidence for the sake of evidence is not useful and does not help your argument. I want to see that you use the evidence as an extension of your logic and analysis in order to ground the argument. If the logic behind your evidence isn't explained I won't provide it with much weight.

3. I LOVE principled arguments and do not think they are used nearly enough in Public Forum! Blame this on my CNDF and BP background, but principles help balance out your case and explain why your side of the debate is best on both a moral/ethical level and on a practical level. An extremely well-developed principle argument will beat a good practical argument every time in my book. That being said, don't forget that principled arguments also need impacts - you can't just say "that's bad and therefore we shouldn't do it" and proceed to sit down.

4. Provide context and characterization for the main actors in the debate. It's not enough to simply tell me that an actor will do something, you need to explain what motivates them to act and what forces may influence the choices that they make. Actors are not static and are multidimensional - I expect you to portray them that way.

5. Do not forget that countries outside of the United States do exist and can be important in the debate. Although this may seem obvious, I often see teams that become so focused on the United States that they either leave out other major actors or miss the major impacts of the debate. It is important that you consider and evaluate all perspectives in the debate and present a global context when the debate warrants it.

6. Word economy is very important. If you are talking fast because you have a lot to say and it is all extremely valuable content, that is excellent. If you are talking fast for the sake of talking fast while being extremely repetitive and/or providing irrelevant content, it will not be rewarded. I would rather have a debater speak very slowly and have every line of analysis mean something rather than someone who speaks at 180 words per minute and does not add much value to the round; however, I frequently see the latter rather than the former.

i don't flow cross

time yourself

gl

Hi, I'm Jessica!

I have experience competing in speech and debate tournaments.

Below is a summary of what I am looking for -- If you have any other questions, ask me!

———

GENERAL: Debate and Speaks

- 2nd rebuttal should frontline turns.

- If dropped in the following speech, it's dropped. If not extended, it's not there. -- Summary and Final Focus speeches are important.

- Average in-division is 28 (it really can only go up or down from here). BONUS: If you sing Let It Go (before the round starts) I'll add 0.5.

- I don't like theory args.

- Tech > Truth

- I flow -- but treat me like a flay judge.

———

IMPORTANT

- I've seen good spreading and bad spreading. If you aren't good at spreading, don't spread at all.

- WEIGH!

- I won't be timing the speeches/prep time used, so time yourselves and keep your opponents accountable.

- Add me to the email chain: jessicajzhang05@gmail.com

- Don't be rude to your opponents. If you are, I will doc your points to 26.

———