Public Forum

Name: Sarah Greenswag

School Affiliation: Libertyville High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10

some tips for success in-round:

-assume i have no previous knowledge of topic, tabula rasa but please no bigoted arguments

- keep time

- comparative weighing: tell me why I should prefer your args over theirs. use weighing mechanisms (magnitude, timeframe, etc)

- rhetoric/truth can be impactful when used to strengthen existing cards and impacts, just make sure you thoroughly explain why it's substantial

- signposting: mention which contention or argument you're on when talking about it

- i don't flow cx but i will be listening: if you have a point, make sure you bring up in your next speech

- identify clash points and address them

- have links and impacts: explain how you get to your impacts, strength of link >>> big impacts, but if you have both go for it

Hello debaters! My name is Ms. Hafner, I am from Hinsdale Central, and I have two years of public forum debate experience.

My biggest request from all of you is that you speak clearly--for me, this entire activity is about communication. You have all worked so hard preparing your cases that I would hate to miss something.

In the summary and final focus speeches, I would prefer you to cover the most important points that I should be voting off of, no need to include every point mentioned throughout the round. Make it very clear to me which arguments I am casting my ballot for and what those impacts are.

Any argument you want weighed should be extended through both of the final speeches. I will not vote off an argument first introduced in grand cross or final focus.

I flow all speeches except cross fire. If you do make a good point in cross fire, be sure to emphasize it in later speeches.

I also believe that the presentation of the arguments are just as important as the arguments themselves. Having a convincing and compelling tone is in your best interest.

If you are speaking second, the second speaker must frontline (addressing the opponent's attacks on their case in rebuttal).

Be respectful of each other at all times, be organized, and have fun!

for Fremd tournament: I know you've had a few tournaments with this resolution, but this is my first time hearing it. Don't assume I'm familiar with the topic or have heard any of the common arguments, abbreviations, etc.

Name: Anusha Jayaprakash

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging: 5 years

General:

- keep speed within reason; if you’re going too fast for me, I’ll put my pen down and look at you until you slow down

- I judge off the flow, lay everything out for me, I won’t make any assumptions or connections for you

- arguments need to be extended throughout the round; if something gets dropped and doesn’t make it to the end of the round, I won’t vote based on it

- give me clear voting issues, I don’t care who won more arguments, tell me why the things you won mean that you should win the round, weigh clearly for me, tell me why I should care about the arguments you won, why do they matter

- I don’t flow cross; if something important comes out make sure you bring it up in a later speech so it ends up on my flow

- keep track of your own time and prep time, if you opponent is going way over, let me know

- treat me like I know absolutely nothing about the topic, I haven’t done any of the research you have

LD:

- I don’t care who wins framework, just make sure you weigh under whichever framework is agreed on

- I don’t like pointless framework debate, if your frameworks are compatible, like justice vs morality, just collapse and move on instead of wasting time arguing which is better

PF:

- If you’re speaking first, it doesn't make sense to go back and defend your case before you opponent’s rebuttal

- the round should funnel down; your constructive and rebuttal focus on the line by line, by the summary you should pick voting issues and address the line by line arguments that tie into them, in final focus I don’t want any line by line arguments, focus entirely on the voting issues for the round and weighing them

- no line by line in final focus, it’s too late for that

As a parent judge I value crisp clear language. Especially in the beginning, when presenting contentions, be succinct but speak slowly. This sets the foundation for the whole round. So if I miss a few sentences or misunderstand, this will not work in your favor. No "spreading" please.

Provide clear sign posts where you are defending or attacking and for transitions. Robustly support your contentions with thoughtfully presented evidence. Evidence should be clearly explained and its relevance explicitly stated.

I value logical reasoning, strong presentation, respect for the topic and each other.

Note:

Please make sure you are keeping track of your own time.

Assume I have never heard about the topic given. I want you to explain and debate as if this is my first time hearing about this topic.

I will give one extra half speaker point if you can somehow work the phrase "riddle me this" into the debate.

Also I love to see weighing in debates :)

I have worked with debate teams for sixteen years and enjoy a healthy argument. I look for a debate with solid evidence that flows through to the end. Framework and voting issues are also appreciated as well. Be respectful to each other and mindful that a healthy clash of ideas often brings forth a refinement of your side. I appreciate the side that weighs their impact.

I'm glad you're doing Debate, I look forward to watching your round, and I wish you the very best of luck!

Before all else, I am a FLOW JUDGE. Here's more specifics on what I want to see in a round:

• All arguments need clearly explained logical warrants, as it's not my job to make logical leaps for you
• Claims must be grounded in evidence, and when there's contradictory evidence on both sides, I'd like an explanation of why to prefer your evidence/warrant, because otherwise I'm left guessing
• Structure your speeches how you feel is best, but signpost so that I know where you're at on the flow
• In a good round, both sides will have valid arguments left, so please WEIGH IMPACTS in later speeches
• I don't flow cross-ex, so if something important happens there, make sure it's in your next speech
• I expect you to stand your ground (this is debate after all), but maintain a baseline of respect/decorum
• I would much rather you ask a clarifying question than attack an argument that wasn't made (don't strawman your opponents, ever)
• I'm cool with a little speed, you have a lot to cover, but please don't spread, because that defeats the point of this activity (I also don't like K's/theory/progressive debate)

I'm always happy to answer any questions before or after the round, since this is an educational tool before all else, and you're here to learn (don't lose sight of that).

Have a great day, make a friend, learn something new, and enjoy it.

I am a parent/lay judge. I expect you to speak at a slower pace so I can keep track of everything you say. However, I judge on clarity. It is your responsibility to make sure I am aware of your framework, contentions, and impact. Signposting is essential in how you present your arguments. Make sure I can follow everything that you want me to hear and vote on. Weigh your contentions so I know what you want me to evaluate and prioritize and why it matters. Be respectful to your opponents, partner, and myself. Finally, the team that will give me the cleanest and most efficient reasons to vote for them with everything considered will get my vote.

Name: Karla Nunez

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: Public Forum Since Fall of 2016 - approx. 7 years | Lincoln-Douglass since Fall 2019 - approx. 4 years

⟨⟨ Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: ⟩⟩

Before answering these questions I'd like to express that normally when asked if i have a Paradigm I'd answer along the lines of "I trust that you know what you are doing, so give me what you've got and I'll do my best to fill you in on what you need to improve". I other words, You, your coach, and teammates are expected to work together to ensure you've got what it takes to win the round, and I ensure that i asses and provide you with tools that can help you improve and succeed in the future. If you take anything away from this is that I'd like for you to GIVE ME WHAT YOU GOT! I want you to show me what 100% of you looks like in that moment. and just trust that your 100% now will change with time and effort.

Speed of delivery- During your constructive any speed as long as you are clear and enunciate properly. If it were a range of 1-5, (1 being slow with heavy pauses and 5 being the fastest ever I could call you McQueen and exclaim "Ka-Chow!") I find students do best at about a 3-4, I would be more concerned with your opponent’s preference.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- If your opponent said something that changes the game then address that, but i like big picture stuff.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- ?????

Flowing/note-taking- You should definitely be flowing 1000000%, and I'll flow your speeches as much as possible, I'll lend an ear to cross incase any of my questions are answered, but none of it will flow through.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? ?????

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I believe that if you state "I win on so and so because my opponent is just wrong", you have plenty of work to do.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? makes sense to me.

Hey y'all! This is my fourth year in varsity public forum, so I am informed about both PF and this topic. I flow and keep time, but please time yourselves.

In round please:

Provide an offtime roadmap.

Weigh in Summary and FF.

Signpost!

Be kind:)

RFD is based on who extends and weighs impacts most succinctly in Summary/FF. Tell me why to vote for you.

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Hello! My name is Justen Pippens but you can refer to me by my initials (JP). I am a second year at Case Western Reserve University and have been debating for close to 6 years. I do have experience in PF, LD, and Policy, that said you can run whatever argument you want in whatever style you want and I will listen to it. However, please note that the winner will be decided on who ever wins the clash. As much as I appreciate your individual cases, this is a competitive event thus you need to clash with your opponent. Effective use of impact, real and sufficient evidence, and cx is how you win the clash. I do reserve the ability to call cards as it pertains to a close round so make sure all cards are able to be accessed or cut ethically.

Things to look out for:

1. Spreading: I am good with speed and will flow even if you are spreading. However, if I do not catch everything you say then it can work against you at the end of the round. Additionally, because spreading is not a practice normally used in PF, please speak with your opponent about sharing documents if you are going to spread.
2. Critiques and Theory (The K): As I stated earlier you can argue in whatever style you want so I will listen to the argument. However, if not debated correctly or if it becomes too messy for the round, the K can work against you. Be clear in your argument and impacts.
3. Tabling and Extensions: Be sure to extend important cards and evidence throughout the round. Your goal is to make me think as little as possible so explain why something is extended or dropped.
4. Racism or Discrimination: Racist / discriminatory arguments or statements will always work against you. If pointed out as harmful or abusive by the opponent you will lose on it.

I hope you have fun while debating because I will have fun judging. At the end of the round I will ask the teams if they want me to disclose (unless specified by tournament management ) as well as give verbal and written feedback. Good Luck!!

I am a parent judge and this is my second year judging PF. 

Speed:

I'm not comfortable with speaking fast, and if I cannot understand your arguments I won't vote on them. Speak slow and clear so I can comprehend what you're saying.

Lingo:

Don't use PF lingo past something like "magnitude" or "probability" because I won't understand it. Express things in terms that the average person would understand.

Round strategy:

Collapse on arguments and summarize the debate in the second half. Trying to go for everything muddles the round and makes it more confusing for me.

In Final Focus, imagine that you're writing my ballot for me.

Weighing:

Weigh early and weigh well. Weighing is comparative: explain to me thoroughly why your impact is more significant than your opponents. This makes voting a lot easier for me

Signposting:

Signposting should be present in every one of your speeches so I know what you're talking about. Giving an off-time roadmap is also very helpful.

Conduct:

Please be polite in round — debate should be a place of learning. If I catch you being disrespectful, I will drop your speaker points.

Some aggressiveness is OK with me so long as you are still being respectful to your opponents and not overbearing.

I'm not familiar with the official rules, so if your opponent has violated one please tell me what rule they have violated.

Finally, please have fun.

Specifics to March LD 2024 (Criminal Justice):

• Please make your arguments concrete. Criminal justice reform is happening in the SQUO in America and beyond. Give me examples of programs. YOU be the one to set the definitions of rehabilitation. Instead of being so theoretical, show me what this actually looks like, please!
• I am OK with counterplans on neg especially for this topic.
• Remember that by round 6, your judges will have heard many of the same arguments. Maybe try to spice it up a bit with something unique!
• Have the best time this weekend :)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

Hello! I am an English teacher and a debate coach of 5 years, and I judge both PF and LD. First and foremost, I want everyone to have a good experience during your round!

In both LD and PF,my #1 priority is this: argue respectfully! If you are rude to your opponents or exceedingly arrogant in your speeches, it will result in a loss of speaker points.

2nd Priority: make my life as a judge easy. Tell me what to do! They dropped your 2nd subpoint? Tell me! Want me to flow something through? Tell me! You're the experts here, and I'm just trying to keep up. Don't assume that I'll catch everything that you catch in a round :)

CLARITY AND SPEED: I value clarity over speed. Obviously sometimes speed is necessary to ensure your speeches will fit in the time limit, but if I miss a tagline or a name of a card, it's only to your detriment!

CONCRETE ARGUMENTS: 2nd point on clarity-- remember that while you have spent a lot of time and effort researching your topics, your judges have not. Before you make your more intricate or unique arguments, spend some time in your FW or contentions explaining the basics or the fundamentals of your case! Give concrete examples when you can!

PRIORITIZE THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TERMINOLOGY: Sorry, clunky, but I don't know how else to say it. Debate should be an accessible space for all, and when it's convoluted with hyper-specific debate terminology and lingo, it make it so hard for this really great activity to be somewhere that people don't feel totally intimidated to join. Also, I'm NOT a former debater. Everything I know I've picked up from coaching in the past 5 years. I vote on arguments, not on technicalities.

ORGANIZATION: I appreciate a nice, well-organized, line-by-line rebuttal!!! Attacking your opponent's cases in order is a huge help to me for flowing.

CROSS: In general, I listen attentively and may write a few notes of good points brought up during CX, but I would prefer anything from CX to be flowed to your later speeches.

IMPACTS: Impacts! You can have all the cards you want in the world, but you need to be able to explain them and explain the impacts of your cards on your case. Again, I'm an English teacher, and I consider your impacts/explanation of cards to be just like your analysis of quotes in an essay. Without it, the essay falls apart!

SPEAKING: While it doesn't weigh much on my decision of who WON the round, I do also appreciate when a speaker uses inflection and proper emphasis in your speeches. Be convinced of your case and convince me to believe in it! I love a good stylistic speech. Keep me engaged! This will definitely impact your speaker points.

WEIGHING: I do prefer clearly listed voter's issues and weighing mechanisms, but not including weighing mechanisms won't necessarily cost you the round.

If you have any questions, just ask! Thank you and good luck!!!

My overall philosophy is to be kind, have fun, and avoid rude commentary (Especially during crossfire) I know that's corny, but if we're spending our Saturdays here together, we should be making friends and enjoying ourselves. Below are some other features that I tend to value in a round because I heard y'all wanted a bigger paradigm. Here we go $$$

Fairness, Clarity, and Case Development: All arguments must be structured logically from A-->B. Every argument should be weighed on its merits and building strawman arguments is mad annoying and will not be considered. High value is placed on the use of credible evidence and sound reasoning. Arguments should primarily be supported by facts and studies that have been developed within the realm of relevance. Unless used as a historical example, a card should be published no later than seven years ago (2017)

More on Cases: Arguments should have direct links. Overextending an idea to meet the needs of your case will damage your argument and your ballot overall. This creates a slippery slope and will most likely not flow through. This feels similar to what I said above, but I'm going to keep it there anyway.

Impact Analysis: Try to place an emphasis on the significance and implications of arguments. Scope is most important to me as a judge.

I don’t need solvency, I just need you to show me how your argument does LESS harm.

Preciate it, GOATS!

I judge on clarity. It is your responsibility to make sure I am aware of your framework, contentions, and impact. Signposting is essential.

Weigh your contentions so I know what you want me to evaluate and prioritize and why it matters.

As a public forum coach and judge I enjoy seeing a lively round with lots of purposeful clash and respectful exchange. I have been coaching debate for 8 years. Any disrespectful behavior including abusive frameworks may work against your partnership. SPEED READING will not be flowed, and I will put my pen down. It is important for me to hear your contentions, links, evidence and impacts. I value accurate use of evidence and weighing in the round. Intentionally muddling a round is manipulative, please do not try to confuse the round with irrelevant information or worse misuse of evidence. I want you to tell me why you are actually winning by proving how you outweigh and pulling your arguments through the round. Line by line is preferable, but a logical narrative can win around if well supported by timely evidence and historical depth of knowledge. In the end I vote for the team that tends to understand the topic and the research, presents with calm and clarity, and crystalizes the debate in the summary while providing voter issues. Additionally, I vote for truth over tech! Happy debating!

My paradigm is not very strict.

This is because this is your event as a student. You are convincing me of your case and I believe the freedom in how you do that is helping you think more critically. This is supposed to be fun, so have fun! So don't be afraid of arguments that aren't normal. I am much more likely to vote for someone who thinks outside the box than someone who has the same case as everyone else.

That said if you take too much ground in a debate and the opponent points out an unfair framework that heavily has an impact on my decision.

I have a background in debate, having competed at the high school level in both policy and Lincoln Douglas debate - (including at state and national tournament levels). I also competed in speech events including extemp, original oratory & storytelling.

I have been judging Public Forum for the past three years. I would say I am a purist to the idea that the debate should be directed to the well-informed citizen. So, I can follow speed/spread to a point, but I don’t enjoy it and I would strongly prefer the debaters concentrate on clear communication, solid analysis and reasoning - skills that will serve them well beyond debate! I particularly look for analysis, strong speaking skills, and development of clash in the debate.

School Affiliation: PALATINE

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 7 years

Speed of delivery- As long as I can flow it I am fine with spreading.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I like a big picture format for Summaries and a crystallization of the debate. Clean up attacks, let me know what you want to focus on, and introduce voter's issues

Extension of arguments into later speeches- All arguments should be extended if you want me to flow them through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow the entire round except for crossfires and final focus.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? To win the debate I value argument. To get high speaker points I value style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, that argument should at least be mentioned in those two speeches.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I don't require front lining - I think debaters should be allowed to deal with attacks against their own case in the summary. Unless we add more time to the second speaker's rebuttal this doesn't seem fair.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No.

TLDR: Focus on value and criterion in LD, don't misuse evidence in PF, and speak extemporaneously in Congress. Always warrant your arguments. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Thou shalt not go off-topic by using abusive "progressive debate" tactics such as kritiks, counterplans, or meta-analysis of debate. I am a traditional judge who flows and is tech over truth. If you think this is contradictory, you might spend too much time online.

In a debate round, most of all I'm looking for a clear, concise, and robust exchange of ideas. Some ways to work on this are to make sure you're signposting in all of your speeches, planning ahead to ensure that you're fitting the most important contentions and objections into the allotted time, and responding directly to the arguments and objections your opponents put forth in their own speeches. Do all of this without strawmanning your opponents (or committing any other major logical fallacies).

Most importantly, warrant: Don't take it for granted that your judges can see why your opponents are wrong, or that your contentions speak for themselves in response to challenges. Even if I do see these things, I can't score you well unless you are doing this work yourselves in the debate. Don't let any of your opponents' objections make it through the flow uncontested. Always warrant your claims. Cross-apply your contentions liberally in rebuttals so that I don't think you've dropped any of your own arguments.

I'm not a fan of most forms of "progressive debate," as I want you to make accessible arguments relevant to the resolution, not signal your position on whatever is currently in vogue. For example, if the resolution is about whether the United States should raise taxes on the wealthy, and you're arguing in favor of doing so, it is 100% okay (and probably a great idea) to give arguments about how capitalism can leave certain groups behind and how trickle-down economics only exacerbates wealth inequality and thus eliminates equality of opportunity. It is not germane to the resolution, however, to make all of your arguments about how capitalism is nothing but a tool of oppression and we need to abolish it, as this is not what is at question in the resolution. Similarly, I find meta-analysis of debate as an activity in-round to be grating. I will always favor the person/team using their speaking time to discuss the issue at hand in the resolution.

I'm also not a fan of counterplans because they shift the burden of proof in the round to the NEG/CON. The burden of proof belongs on the AFF/PRO. If you don't want to defend the status quo, I think you need to ask yourself why you're spending your free time doing this activity. As a coach and an instructor, the greatest value I see in debate is that it teaches students to charitably look at and adopt perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Using abusive "progressive debate" tactics to get around doing this robs you of the greatest benefit of doing debate, and robs your opponent of the opportunity to engage in a robust exchange of ideas about the actual topic of the round. Here I'll provide the analogy of papers: if a student handed me a paper that was well-written, but never actually addressed the topic they were supposed to write about (or worse, questioned the process of writing the paper in the first place), they would fail because they did not actually complete the assignment. The same is true in a debate round.

A note on speed: I don't mind spreading and can keep up with it as long as you don't talk like you have marbles in your mouth. But before you spread, consider that you will have many lay judges in this circuit who are unfamiliar with this speed or even hostile to it. Proceed at your own peril. Additionally, I often see debaters spread to try and overwhelm their opponents with cards to respond to without ever substantially developing or warranting their arguments. When I read student philosophy papers, I look for two things before anything else: clarity and concision. The lesson from this is that sometimes less is more because it forces you to focus on what really matters in the round, and as such you develop your arguments around key voting issues far more than you would if you were just hammering your opponent with as much evidence as possible.

A couple of notes on questioning: I'm not a fan of debaters interrupting or steamrolling their opponents. Be courteous and give the other team/person a chance to respond and to ask their own questions during grand cross while still using your own speaking time well. Being the loudest person in the room is not synonymous with being the best debater. I do not flow questioning, either. If you want something that came up in questioning to factor into my decision, you need to bring it back up in one of your speeches.

A final note on my ballots: I try to write pretty detailed ballots because I know how frustrating it is to lose a round and then not understand why, or to be told something vague or even get a blank ballot. I try to make up for this all-too-pervasive problem with debate judging by providing you with detailed feedback. However, I want you to understand that only the comments in my RFD directly factored into my decision. I'm writing comments throughout the round to you individually to try and provide feedback on your cases (especially because I know some of you may not have coaches), as well as your argumentation and speaking styles. Sometimes I will write things in the individual comments section that are my personal opinion on what makes a good case, or whether something is a convincing argument. As a tabula rasa judge, this kind of thing does not factor into my decision unless the other debater(s) call(s) you on anything I mention in one of their speeches. I provide this individual feedback not to explain my decision, but to potentially help you grow as a debater. The RFD is the true explanation of my decision.

For Lincoln-Douglas: If you're using a moral or political theory from analytic philosophy (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism, deontology/rights-based, virtue ethics, Rawlsian distributive justice/justice as fairness, any kind of social contract theory, principles from medical ethics, etc.) please make sure you know what you're talking about. I have way too many rounds where a utilitarian or consequentialist framework devolves into deontology or rights-based theory, and vice versa. Or worse, where a debater uses a contradictory value and criterion, such as pairing autonomy with consequentialism. And these are the simplest moral theories; the bar will be even higher if you choose Rawls or something more obscure. I'm not against you using these theories (in fact, as a philosophy teacher I want you to do so), I just want you to use them well and appropriately. I highly recommend that all LD debaters read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy extensively in order to better prepare for using and coming up against philosophical concepts in rounds. Theories from continental philosophy will be a tougher sell for me in general because they're even more difficult to use appropriately.

No matter what value and criterion you choose, make sure you're linking all of your impacts back to your framework throughout the round. A brief mention at the top of each speech is not nearly enough attention to framework in LD. Also, please don't make your value "morality." That's redundant. All of these resolutions have the word "ought" in them; morality is implicitly valued in the round. Saying your value is morality is like telling me you want to do something without specifying what you want. You're not actually giving me any real information here about how you're using a theory of value to evaluate the resolution at hand.

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again. Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congress debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

I debated PF in high school, first and second speaker. I have experience with nat circuit and local Illinois debate.

I mostly go off of the flow, so please please please signpost. Don't drop cards and then just say card names when extending. PLEASE weigh in your speeches, it makes all the difference in who I say wins the round. Rebuilding/Frontlining needs to be done. If you are going second, you need to be rebuilding in rebuttal. I will not flow your rebuilding if you do it second summary. Tech over truth. I am not a big fan of spreading. I will (and often do) vote off of a turn. They are offense and should be treated as such.

extending down the flow>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>voter's issues