I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In DI, HI, DUO: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision.

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

I have done policy debate for 3 years at St. Andrew's Episcopal Schools.

Just have fun and be respectful to your opponent.

hey,

I'm currently a sophomore in college that participated in PF, extemp, and impromptu through the last three years of high school

-flow judge

-weighing is incredibly important. if you're not weighing, you're going to lose. if you have an amazing linkchain that ultimately boils down to a negligible impact, your argument's null. if you do have a serious impact, but you fail to weigh it over your opponent's, it's like you made a cake and forgot to frost it.

-actually weigh too please, don't just say your impact beats theirs. explain why

-imo PF's natural framework is util. if you don't engage in the framework debate, util's my framework

-frontline and extend everything. new arguments in summary or FF aren't arguments, just wastes of time

-tech over truth unless it's nonsensical and obviously false

-if it's PF, please don't spread. it's not policy, you really don't have enough to say to warrant it. you obviously still can spread, but if you do then I'll have both teams disclose

-my email is cmdoughe@go.olemiss.edu

-i debated in the Louisiana circuit so I'm only somewhat familiar with progressive argumentation. i still understand it, though, so feel free to use it; if it's PF, it doesn't really have a place but I can't stop you

-signposting. just, like, do it lol

-i'll listen to cross-x because it matters, but if you want me to flow something from it then bring it up in speech

-obviously second rebuttal should respond to first rebuttal

-be respectful of your opponent(s) and don't take yourself too seriously

that's all, hope y'all have fun

I was a high school policy debater, college IPDA debater, and now lawyer. That being said, I can tolerate most styles of debate, but ask that in the age of Covid and online tournaments, you be sure to be as clear as possible when speaking. Even though you normally may be able to go faster, if you can't be as clear, it may benefit you to slow down a bit.

I like big picture, impact calc, why we win analysis. If you run a K but can't evaluate it within the round, I'm not going to evaluate it for you.

Email me for any questions about the round or otherwise halgregfox@gmail.com.

Experience: I debated throughout high school and have coached several debaters in Lincoln Douglass and Public Forum

I may ask to see cards after the round, especially if the evidence is highly disputed. If you would like me to examine a card, either yours or your opponents, just ask.

Lincoln Douglass

1. Lincoln Douglass is values debate. I like cases that build solid philosophical frameworks and carry their importance throughout the round. Explain why your ethical interpretation of the topic is superior to your opponent's. The framework is the principle way to determine the values we should be operating under in the round, and so it is incredibly important that you fight to win on it.

2. Speed is fine but if you spread I expect you to email both me and your opponent your case to follow along, otherwise I will consider spreading unfair and abusive in the round.

3. I am fine with progressive debate but I am swayed much easier by traditional arguments. I was a traditional debater in high school, and it's the LD I like to see.

4. Be clear with signposting!! If I can't follow your argument on the flow, your chances of winning the round are not very high- same story if I can't track your arguments on your opponent's flow. Voters and a quick summation of your argument at the end of your speech will also earn you points. Refer to evidence by the author's name and don't throw me for a loop scrambling up and down the flow.

5. Cross-ex is your time to gain concessions and clarify what you need clarified. I won't flow it, and it won't factor into my decision for the round. If you want something said in cross-ex to factor into the decision making, bring it up in your speech.

6. This should go without saying, but be respectful. No screaming or attacks on your opponent will be tolerated. I don't really expect this to be a problem, but I've encountered these types of debaters before in LD.

Public Forum

1. Spreading in public forum debate is ridiculous. Don't do it. This is layman's debate, so obviously progressive debate and theory is unacceptable as well.

2. PF seems to struggle with this the most out of any other debate event- BE RESPECTFUL. Being louder and more snide will only lose you speaking points. Passion is perfectly fine, but there's a palpable difference between listening to an impassioned speech and a spoken word hate letter.

3. SIGNPOST. I need to know where you are taking me in your case and your opponent's case, refer to evidence by the author's name and don't throw me for a loop scrambling up and down the flow.

4. I am aware of the rules of public forum. Don't try to introduce new evidence/arguments past the rebuttal speeches. I will find it and I will drop it, like the terminator, but for unfair evidence. Frontlining in the 1st summary speech is obviously fine.

5. Crossfire is your time to gain concessions and clarify what you need clarified. I won't flow it, and it won't factor into my decision for the round. If you want something said in crossfire to factor into the decision making, bring it up in your speech. Disclaimer- if crossfire devolves into a screaming match, especially during grand cross, I will deduct speaks.

6. Weigh in your final focus! It's all about impacts, and I want to see why yours are more impactful than your opponent's.

╱▏┈┈┈┈┈┈▕╲▕╲┈┈┈

▏▏┈┈┈┈┈┈▕▏▔▔╲┈┈

▏╲┈┈┈┈┈┈╱┈▔┈▔╲┈

╲▏▔▔▔▔▔▔╯╯╰┳━━▀

┈▏╯╯╯╯╯╯╯╯╱┃┈┈┈

┈┃┏┳┳━━━┫┣┳┃┈┈┈

┈┃┃┃┃┈┈┈┃┃┃┃┈┈┈

┈┗┛┗┛┈┈┈┗┛┗┛┈┈┈

lil dog for ya, good luck in the round

Let's have a great round!

Hi All! I am a very lay judge. With that being said I need to be able to hear you and speak at a very slow pace (sorry). If you are speaking so fast that I do not understand I will say clear which should prompt you to slow down. If you continue to speak fast you will lose my ballot.

When looking at arguments they must be developed with claims warrants and impacts.

Make sure I can understand you; don't speak too fast!
Above all, be respectful to each other!

Hello everyone. I wish you all the best of luck during your competition. For Public Forum Debate, I like to judge based on logical arguments. Please be cordial during crossfires. I do not like to see rounds where it turns into a yelling match, because it gets hard to listen to.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

After 4 years of judging in MS and at five National Tournaments, the most important advice I can give if I am selected to be your judge is:

*Be respectful of yourself, your opponent/fellow competitors, and your judges.  This includes being mindful of your time constraints, being considerate in your conversations/arguments/speeches, and being well prepared to present your case(s) and/or your piece(s). 

*Have fun!  You can take this tournament seriously, be well-prepared, and have a blast all at the same time.  Your time in high school will fly by, so no regrets, only memories!  

Good luck!

Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).

Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.

I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.