Columbia University Invitational
2022 — NSDA Campus, NY/US
Varsity PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a parent judge with 3 years of novice, JV and Varsity PF experience. I have also judged a few LD and Policy debates. Please consider me a Flay Judge.
- Speak as fast as you would like, but I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
- Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
- Please do not read any form of progressive argumentation (theory, kritiks, etc.) as I cannot evaluate them and will not give you credit for them.
- Off-time roadmaps and sign-posting are encouraged. It helps me follow your debate better.
- My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
- I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards as I like to review them as well.
Good luck and have fun!
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.
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.
I'm Quanta Anthony (known by most as Ms. Q). I am a Debate Mom, becoming a part of this life after my daughter Marley became a Debater here in the Nations Capitol. Marley has moved on to College now and is also a Debate Judge. After the first debate, it was history.
I've taught both children and adults, in corporate offices and homes. With that past experience, it is my goal to listen thoroughly and judge objectively and fairly.
Please pace your speaking, and make sure to weigh your arguments against your opponents.
I'm a flow judge and have debated 4 years of PF at Trinity School. Went to 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 16" 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 :)
I am a lay judge. Let's have fun.
Hi, I'm Nolan and I'm a first-year out at GWU enduring mechanical engineering. I did PF for Scarsdale for four years on the nat circuit.
I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round, just give me time to complete my ballot.
If you're in a rush before your round: Fast is ok, but unclear isn't. Don't be mean, weigh plz; tell me why you win the round.
Also no theory or K's, I am beginning to realize their cancerous spread into PF is inevitable but I will remain as a holdout against it for as long as possible.
Now if you actually care for some reason (I wouldn't), here are some more in-depth preferences.
- Just like, don't be rude in cross. I understand the distinction between assertiveness and aggressiveness, but aggressiveness will greatly lower your speaks.
- I do not flow author names, rather, I flow card content. If you want to extend something, tell me what the card says too, don't just "Extend McDonald '18"
- In terms of speaker points: I give pretty high speaks, possibly too high. You'll really only go below a 28 if you made a critical error and if that happens, I will tell you. Speaks can be lost for things like misconstruing evidence, being a dick in cross, or not giving me any impacts or weighing. Basically just things that make it more difficult for me to evaluate the round.
- Conversely, I will raise your speaks for things that make the round easier to judge and overall more enjoyable. This includes things like clear speaking, civility in cross, and good weighing.
Although I am a parent judge, this is my fifth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.
- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed
- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so.
- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.
- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the first constructive, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.
- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.
- I appreciate off-time roadmaps and signposting before and during your speaches.
- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.
- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.
Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. In addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores.
While I have not formally done debate, I have participated as a judge multiple times, and I work as a Professor and Dean at a University. In debate, I am fine with speed as long as I can understand what you are saying and the arguments are coherent. I vote based on who is doing a better job with the argument. I preference a better debater over an argument that I agree with. The presentation of data and the use of strong sources is important. I will not vote on racist, sexist, homophobic arguments. I appreciate the strategic use of cross-examination, not for personal attacks. I am not familiar with the use of theory and it will not be a successful strategy.
I am not an experienced judge, but I have judged a few rounds in the past, so please try to be patient with me, without assuming that I am understanding everything that you are saying.
I would like the debaters to be always on time and respect the opponents. Because of the time limit, many time debaters tend to go over their points very quickly and in the process lose the attention of the judge. It is very important to be clear and crisp while speaking.
I would also like the debaters to make sure to outweigh at the end of the round and to make it clear why I should vote for them.
I will be listening to the speakers carefully and looking for flow, consistency, evidence and sources of evidence. Will be noting down all the key points and assess based on content presented and will go by the data for final out come. I have judged in Berkley and other tournaments around Bay area before.
For speaks I average a 29.7/29.8 so you will be fine
I am a parent judge with experience judging PF, LD and some Speech events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread - I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.
I take a lot of notes and will judge on the flow. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's.
By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded. Good luck and have fun!
I am a parent judge, and this is my first season judging Public Forum. I've previously judged Lincoln-Douglas Debates and prior to that in Parliamentary Tournaments. I'd prefer if you refrained from spreading, because I feel it is not suited to the virtual format we find ourselves in this year. I value hearing your arguments and contentions presented clearly and with conviction. I appreciate good clash as long as it's done respectfully.
I’m a lay judge and the parent of a current debater. I have debated in the past, and I have judged parliamentary and LD debates recently. It would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will vote on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to listen to each other and respond to the arguments you are hearing. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful while still showing their arguments to be superior. It is important to me that you explain logically why your impact will happen. It is important to me that you understand the topic and that you try to persuade me that you believe in your argument.
Thank you and good luck!
I have not participated in a debate team and come from a Marketing background and am well trained in how to make a powerful case and appeal to people with evidence-based arguments.
Given that Marketing background, I value confidence, clarity, and presentation -- in addition to strong and clear arguments. Make sure you lay out a good story and a clear path from A to B to C through your presentation. Start strong and finish strong. Make sure you don't make unfounded assumptions about what your audience knows or doesn't know; i.e., don't talk over my head.
High speed presentation will likely result in a loss of clarity and decline in quality of presentation, so could result in a reduction in scoring -- especially if it is too fast for me to follow along.
I will be looking for solid arguments and a powerful rebuttal, and will not be counting out how many arguments are being made. I will be looking for clear citations of source materials for key facts, and make sure those facts are relevant to the argument being made.
Former debater. No spreading. No new evidence after summary. Definitely, no new arguments in second summary, except to respond to a new argument brought up in first summary. I won't look at cards, so if you call a card and it's wrong, you have to tell me how it is wrong; evidence falsification/fabrication, however, is a whole other issue, which should be taken up with Tab. I principally vote on what is in the Final Focus, so extend your arguments through every speech until FF.
I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge.
Your points and evidence will show how well you are prepared for the round, on top of that, how well you deliver your points and how convincing your speech sounds to the judge is also important.
I have been a parent judge for PF for four 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.
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 says". Rather, it could be: "As former Assistant Secretary of Defense John Higgins said in his Foreign Affairs article..."
You do not have a "card". You have evidence described by or the views of a third party.
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, it is President Trump, President Obama and (until January), Vice 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 argument. 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. 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 clearly is far more important and effective than saying too much in a way that cannot be understood.
I am a parent judge so please speak clearly and logically so I can understand what you are saying and why.
I will give full speaker points to all debaters who can do this.
Ultimately, I will vote for the team whose case makes the most sense
My name is Jian Chen and I’m a parent judge from Princeton that has been judging for a while. I’m comfortable with a lot but I ask that you use logic and reasoning to back your case. Please speak clearly and comprehensively. Overall if you can explain and defend you argument well I can follow it
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.
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.
-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.
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 email@example.com
Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024
Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)
Scroll down for PF paradigm
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.
2020 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. Yale will be my first tournament this year, but I will probably get better as the tournament goes on. I also never debated/judged online before, so pls excuse if I have tech issues or don't know some stuff.
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
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.
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.
I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible
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.
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
Reasonability = yes
I am a flow judge. Any speed is fine in the PF world, but don't try to spread when you never have spreaded before. I have come to realize that PFers power-tagged cards to an extreme, which means I will most likely ask for cards at the end of the round. Please provide me with the portion of the card you have read and the entire article. That being said, I don't believe every argument needs a card to absolutely support it-smart analytics and logics will earn you speaker points. Also, I abs love for you to try new unique arguments. I think public forum is way too restrictive, and if you are daring enough to run arguments from other forms of debate or just unorthodox arguments, I WILL ABSOLUTELY VOTE FOR YOU. Argument innovation is ALWAYS welcome.
Also, you don't have to ask me to do anything. You just do you, and I will let you all do whatever you want as long as it's not rude/offensive(and even then which I won't interfere, but it will impact ur speaker point). How I assign speaks are above.
I am also a huge huge weeb. My fav genre is slice of life romance and my fav anime is Oregairu aka SNAFU, so if you can make a reference to it during speech it will help your speaks a lot.
I'm a parent judge without real debating experience myself :-)
I don't mind your speaking speed but please be clear. My flow skill is not there yet but I do try.
I pay a lot of attention to good arguments (plus for your side) and effective rebuttals (minus for your opponent). Your summary and final focus just need to bring up those plus and minus points.
Your insightful and innovative arguments, if you can back them up well with clear logic and/or credible sources, will be appreciated. I consider judging a learning experience and enjoy it very much.
Please be respectful to your opponents as I don't favor aggressive behavior.
Good luck to both teams!
I am a parent judge for Dublin High School. My daughter is in her third year debating in PF. I expect the debaters to self-govern and adherence to time limits.
- Speak very clearly (enunciation) and slowly. Do not speak too fast and emphasize important words, use pauses effectively.
- Speak confidently. If something is important, make sure you make that very clear. Refer to me as judge if you want my attention especially during your speech.
- Give eye contact during every speech.
- I take your body language into consideration.
- Be polite and respectful to me, your opponents and your partner
- Stay on the topic. I will not vote for you if you go off topic.
- Make your arguments very clear to follow and understand, especially if you are advancing them. If your opponents do not respond, make sure to mention that in your next speech.
- Don't be disorganized. In rebuttal or summary, tell me if you're addressing their case or their refutations in crossfire. Also, give me an off time brief roadmap before the rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches.
- In final focus, tell me the voter issues (main arguments in today's debate), why you won, why they lost, and why your impact outweighs theirs. The easier you make it for me to know why you won, the more likely you will win.
I am a lay judge. Please do not assume I know any debate jargon. Please explain all abbreviations the first time you use them. Please be on time for your tournament.
I am a Information Technology professional at North Highland, a Management Consulting Firm. I have a degree in engineering and consider myself as very analytical and project manager at heart. I don't have experiences with high school debates prior to volunteering for this role. However, I have created and presented to executives for a number of years to know the difference between substance and hot air. I also serve as member of school board in our school district and very involved in supporting the cause of education. I am also a news-junkie and have deep interest in politics at the national level.
2020 is my first year as PF judge and I am looking forward to it.
I have a strong preference for convincing arguments (based on facts) over speed or other stylistic elements of debates; I prefer strength and confidence over aggression without substance. Simply put, convince me with common sense and logical reasoning.
Parent judge; speak slowly.
I did 4 years of nat circuit PF in highschool.
Do these to make it easy for me to vote for you:
1. Weigh on both the link and impact level
2. Have a consistent narrative/story throughout the round, especially in summary/ff. That said, I'm more than happy to reward strategic risk-taking like going all-in on a turn
3. Warrants/good logic >> bad evidence
-If evidence isn't prepared correctly (NSDA) in the form of a cut card ("here's a link, cntrl f this" doesn't count), I strike it and it becomes your own analysis
-generally try to be tab
-tech > truth
-full disclaimer: I think disclosure good is true, but you still have to win the shell
-no 2-2 split or defense in summary required, but it can be a good idea
-high threshold for blippy logic or args (will also be reflected in speaks)
-'"I will evaluate Tricks" -Anya Tang' -Albert Chu
Contact with any questions: email@example.com
I have been judging PF since 2010.
Please do not speak quickly - I will not be able to follow you.
I place a premium on well-supported, "real-world" links, which are to me a prerequisite to your impact, no matter how large.
I am a judge from Newton South HS, just outside of Boston, MA. I have been judging PF since 2010. I debated in high school in the early 80s. But don’t let that fool you.
FLOWING – I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. As you go faster, however, my comprehension drops. In addition to speed, I have trouble with the following: (1) Evidence tags: Because I am unable to catch most evidence tags, I probably won’t know what you are talking about when you remind me that “Smith in 17” told me something important in your partner’s last speech – unless Smith is a big deal in the round and you have talked a lot about that evidence. (2) Short argument tags, especially in the two-minute speeches, in which debaters often introduce their own argumentation structure. If you say something like, “On economic growth, remember…”, I will end up spending 5-10 seconds trying to figure out what “economic growth” argument you are referring to (and perhaps even what side of the resolution you are on). As a result, I may miss a few of your responses. It’s more helpful if you build a bit of the link chain into your tag. For example – “Our opponents say more H-1b visas boost jobs and hence economic growth, but remember…”
IMPACTS AND LINKS – I find that which side wins my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. If I don’t find your link chain compelling, I will have a hard time voting for you, even if there’s something very big at the end of that chain. Argumentation that contributes to link chain credibility includes: (1) Inferences based on rigorous analysis of empirical data – i.e., a well-designed statistical analysis. If you can explain why the data in the analysis apply to (i.e., can be generalized to) the scenario being debated in the round, and why the statistical methods mitigate the risk of invalid inferences, I will find you to be compelling. (2) Consistency with history / the world we live in – For a lot of arguments, there are no rigorously conducted statistical analyses. For example, for few statistical studies look at how policies may influence public opinion, politicians, the policies of other countries, and so forth. But if you can identify pertinent historical precedents and argue that they inform the scenario being debated in the round, I will again find you to be compelling.
LESS COMPELLING ARGUMENTS – (1) Just because Professor Smith says something is true won’t necessarily convince me unless I understand *the basis* for Professor Smith’s beliefs. Yes, I’m looking for a warrant. But hopefully, you have more than your *own* explanation for Professor Smith’s conclusion. It’s best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. (2) Pasting together links from different sources often produces less compelling arguments. For example, Source A tells us that certain policies are politically divisive; Source B says that political division leads to federal gridlock; and Source C says that gridlock delays funding for the military and undermines national security, which, naturally, causes nuclear war. A problem with this sort of link chain in my mind is that the different sources use similar phrases to describe various types of events, but they aren’t really talking about the same things. For example, is the “divisiveness” described in Source A really equivalent to the “political division” described in Source B? And is the political division described in Source B emblematic of what has caused gridlock, as documented in Source C? If your opponent fleshes out these limitations, and if they have an alternative, more plausible description of how the real world works, that could be a problem for your position.
BOTTOM LINE – Fast argumentation challenges my ability to follow you. Stretched link chains challenge my tendency to believe you. You are best off presenting an intuitive narrative (i.e., a story that is consistent with how the “real world” works) and using that narrative as your foundation for establishing why your position is more credible than your opponent’s.
Mariel Cruz - Updated 10/2/2018
Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School
I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater in college. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.
Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF, but I have primarily coached parli the last few years.
Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.
Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.
K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.
Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc)
Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.
Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.
General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.
Strake Jesuit '19|UT Austin '23
Email Chain/Questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
Email Chain is REQUIRED for online rounds. This includes cases and any cards you are going to read in rebuttal.
Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any argument you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but I really mean you can do whatever you want. In a similar sense, you can wear whatever you feel comfortable wearing and speak from whatever position makes you feel most comfortable.
Arguments that I am mostly comfortable with:
Theory, Topicality Plans, Counter Plans/PICs, Disads, soft-left Kritiks, most framework/philosophical args.
Arguments that I am less familiar with:
Tricks and Non-T Args.
Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them a little more than you would a regular case.
Speaking and Speaker Points
I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.
Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.
I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.
You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, Facebook message me before the round and I can help. Tell me if you have disclosed your cases because I'm not gonna check for you.
I would prefer that you extend your evidence by the author's last name. I usually only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, your speech will be harder for me to follow.
EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each). Similarly, if going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.
Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.
Defensive extensions should be in every speech - it is not sticky.
Shortcut: Identity/Materialism Ks > T > Larp > Ethical frameworks or High theory Ks> Theory > Dense tricks
Please time/record yourselves and each other
Hi, I'm Max! I did four years of LD in high school, reaching a few bid rounds and attending NCFLs twice.
It's been a bit since I've last heard spreading so please start at 70%ish and work your way up from there.
I will evaluate any argument in the round and try to refrain from inserting my opinions as long as arguments a) have a warrant that I can explain in my decision and b) are not clearly offensive. I will not understand your position (especially philosophical/high theory ones) as well as you do. If you are reading a non-T aff or high theory K, explain what the aff/alt/method does. The online format makes it pretty hard to catch blippy arguments. If an argument is important, let me know: have explicit weighing, spend time on the argument, or even tell me to highlight it on excel.
I mainly read Idpol Ks in high school (setcol and abolition), but when reading a K to me make sure link, alt, and impact are all very clearly explained in the 2N. I don't necessarily know what your K means--I like brief (~15-45 seconds) overviews (plural!) on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense. I like unorthodox alts if they make sense in the context of the K and will reward them with higher speaks if they're good.
Update after Ridge: I'm open to hearing disclosure theory, but my threshold for voting for it will increase as the violation becomes less egregious. If you forego substance debate for a disclosure theory shell, either explain your voters extremely well, or make sure there's a legitimate abuse story.
Update for Big Lex and Columbia: Although I've never competed in PF, I have been teaching it to 5-10th graders for two years--please don't feel like you need to adapt for me and I'll try to evaluate your arguments as fairly as possible! However, I don't have any topic knowledge, so please be a bit patient with topic-specific knowledge and acronyms.
Update after Big Lex: I won't vote on explicit counterplans in PF--however, I believe that if the neg side proves an alternative to legalizing drugs that is happening or has a possibility of happening in the status quo solves case and avoids disadvantages, I'll vote on it
I'm new to this league, so please speak slowly. Please make it clear which claims you are arguing against so I can accurately flow. And please be respectful of each other at all times.
Update for Columbia i do not know anything about the topic. I can also handle speed now :)
I am a lay judge. At the end of the round, give a narrative explaining why you felt you won the round if not it would be hard for me to vote.
Please send all pieces of evidence you read, so if I missed something I can write it down and remember to make it easier for my decision
If you want high speaks do what is in my paradigm, if you do not like lay judge STRIKE ME
Debate is a game so have fun and best of luck.
This is my second year judging PF debate, but I am no means an experienced judge. I am the parent of a PF debater, so at the least I am somewhat familiar with the resolves. I have judged mainly at small scale tournaments and leagues. However, I am still an extremely lay judge
- Please speak somewhat slowly and clearly, I struggle with high speed speech, and if I don't hear something I will struggle to weigh it in round
- Clarify/Emphasize important impacts/evidence
- No spreading
- I am incredibly unfamiliar with any form of off-topic/theory arguments/K's, please stick to arguing the resolve
- Sign-posting/off time road maps are appreciated to allow me to keep better notes throughout the debate
- Please by civil with both your opponents and me
- Keep crossfire controlled, and try to keep grand crossfire from being to chaotic
- Any sort of discrimination or overt aggression towards your opponent will not be accepted and will result in a major reduction in speaker points
- Any points that are racist, sexist, or homophobic will not be evaluated
- Be patient with results at the end of the debate
(p.s. please take it easy on my mom. This entire paradigm was written by me, my mom doesn't know what most of the words in the paradigm mean. - child of judge)
I am a lay parent volunteer and this is my second year judging debate but it has been a minute! While I am a newbie, I am also a practicing lawyer, and specifically a litigator. So, I know how to put together an argument and I know a bad argument when I see it. A few things I will offer:
1. I recommend not filling your arguments with debate jargon. I am not familiar with these terms and using them isn't helpful to me. Making arguments like, "the other team did X debate thing while we did Y debate thing which is better," just is not meaningful to me and so will not advance the ball for you. If there's something I need to know, just tell me without the jargon.
2. Don't assume I know anything about your topic. I get that you have spent a lot of time researching and learning the topic, but I haven't, and that isn't my job as your judge. It is your job to educate and convince me.
3. Be very clear about the components of your argument and likewise quickly break down your opponent's argument. This is extremely helpful to any judge when done well.
4. I'm a fast talker myself, but I find PF debaters can be in a category of their own. Please do not speak too quickly - I will not be able to fully follow or understand you. If you do need to speak quickly, make sure your speech is not monotone, which makes you even more difficult to follow.
5. I value "real-world" links. I will not weigh your impact, no matter how large, if what you are saying defies logic and common sense. Don't stretch your link chains beyond value.
6. Common sense arguments are valuable. Simply turning repeatedly to "my source vs. their source" after the constructive probably isn't going to win the day for you. I prefer that you use reasoning to show me how your argument works and apply real understanding of the topic.
7. Be polite to each other. Pay attention to this advice during cross-fire in particular. Avoid speaking over each other, not answering questions, being condescending, or taking too much time on your point.
Good luck and have fun!
I am a parent "lay" judge. I debated in high school (Lincoln Douglas) and have done some PF judging in recent years, but am hardly an expert on the technical aspects of PF debate.
What I am looking for is clean, cogent arguments that are internally and externally consistent. Internally consistent meaning that they have an underlying logic that is well explained and does not conflict with other arguments your team makes. Externally consistent meaning that there is a tie to relevant supporting facts, and that the facts lined up to support your arguments are not in conflict with one another or with common sense.
On rebuttal, I'm looking for teams to attack the internal and external consistency of the other side's arguments. Again, I'm looking for logic and evidence in this attack.
The team that wins is the team that has the most convincing contentions that survive (withstand other team's attacks) to the end of the debate.
Pretty straightforward. Let me add a few things that I'm *not* looking for:
1. Too rapid speaking/high volume of arguments: Speaking quickly in order to get in the most words and make the most points is at best a tradeoff: you get more words, but your words become less effective if I can't understand them or can't fully grasp the point. On average, PF debaters I've judged speak too fast and the effectiveness of their arguments suffer as a result.
2. Overuse of debate lingo. Don't tell me you've won the debate because you turned their contention and negged their impact. Tell me in plain English why you've won. Or better yet, just tell me why your main arguments have survived intact through the debate and your opponents' arguments have not.
3. Rude/overly aggressive behavior: Yes, this is a competitive event and emotions can run high. But try to be respectful and polite towards your opponents at all times, and do not try to get "under their skin" with overly aggressive behavior.
4. Unrealistic impacts: Keep in mind that impacts have to do with probability as well as outcome. Impacting everything to utter calamity (nuclear war, societal breakdown) does not win if the probability of such an outcome is slight. It's really hard to judge the exact probability of extremely low probability events -- so try to keep it in the realm of reasonably probable.
Finally, let me say thank you for all of the work you all put in. I get the easy job, and I'm impressed by the level of effort and the quality of debate that I usually see.
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:
Extensions to FF
Hello Everyone! My name is Beth Fowler and I am an historian and Senior Lecturer at Wayne State University. I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that builds to a persuadable argument. I also want debaters to listen carefully to their opponents arguments, and to be able to address them clearly rather than simply reiterating their own points. Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments, and the summation to clearly explain how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument.
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 freshman 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.
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 email@example.com
Novices, scroll down towards the end, unless you're curious. Here's the long version.
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.
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, not 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 28.5.
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 please 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. Defense is sticky through summary if it goes unresponded to; that is, if you do not frontline a response, that response stays true until at least final focus, where it needs to be brought up again. You do not need to repeat blocks that your opponents do not interact with in summary necessarily, unless it is especially important to the round (like terminal defense).
6. Please don't be egregiously poor with evidence- that just leads to really mucky debates and that would make me sad.
7. 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.
8. 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".
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 >15 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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Parent judge. I don't time, so time yourselves. I have experience with debate, so don't worry about speaking too fast or using complex arguments; do not spread! Make it clear for me in summary and final focus why you are winning the round: I don’t want to do the thinking and weighing of arguments - give me a clear avenue straight to your ballot. Overall, have fun, and I vote on whose argument makes the most sense/is backed by factual and valid terminal evidence throughout the round.
Hi, I'm Casey (she/her/hers)! I’m currently a student at the University of Florida (go gators!). I thoroughly enjoyed debate in high school and was an active participant. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum throughout my four years in high school. I was a traditional debater, so I prefer traditional-level debate.
Conflicts: West Broward HS (Pembroke Pines, FL); Accokeek Academy; DCUDL
Respect your opponents at all times. Regardless of their race, gender, or skill level, show them the same level of respect you wish to receive from any one. Any form of disrespect will be noted on the ballot.
Please provide trigger warnings (TW); I'm pretty chill with any arguments but I don't like being caught off guard so just let me know before the round
Going along with TWs, if you are running a controversial or sensitive topic as an argument, please be respectful. That being said, I don’t like blatantly, offensive arguments at all, especially if they only exist in the world you have created in the round.
If my notes are completed and the tournament allows, I will disclose after the round.
Please keep track of your own timing and hold your opponents accountable for timing as well.
*Notes specific for virtual debate tournaments*
Please keep evidence exchanging brief. I know there are unique challenges with debating online, but please try to minimize time spent sharing evidence. Stopping the flow of the round messes everyone up. A few suggestions would be; to start an email chain before round or share a google doc with everyone and copy and paste cards there.
If possible, please keep your cameras on. If there are wifi/connection challenges that is completely understandable. I just like putting a name to a face :)
Summary of my judging style
I prefer no progressive debate (Ks, theory, etc.). I'm chill with counterplans.
CX is probably one of my favorite parts of debate, so I do flow cross. It won’t overpower your arguments for my decision of the round.
Summaries should focus on FW, warrants, and why you’ve won. Final focus should weigh impacts, don’t try to revive arguments that weren't even touched/mentioned in the summary.
Speed: It is your burden to make sure your speeches are clear and understandable. The faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. I do prefer slow-medium pace speed, but I can handle faster speed.
Flex Prep: I do not allow flex prep, even if your opponent is mutually consensual of it. There is a time for CX for a reason. And I do flow/note CX and during prep time both teams should be allowed to use their time to prepare, not answer questions.
Speaker Points: Speaker points decrease based upon professionalism in the round. If the round is well debated, regardless of who wins, speaker points will reflect. I’m not in the business of screwing people over through speaker points, trust me I know the pain.
Please ask any questions you may have pre-round. Hope you have a great tournament!
I did PF with Half Hollow Hills in HS, and have since done many forms of college debate (never policy though). I've also coached PF with various high schools and organizations.
If you are confused about an RFD or just want feedback or anything like that, email me at email@example.com.
Tldr: I'm flow but don't want overly debate-y or progressive arguments that are super far-fetched or non-educational. Be funny and cordial to everyone in the room please.
Quick, OPTIONAL ways to make me happy in any debate format:
If you’re funny, or you quote one of the following comedy shows [Silicon Valley, Community, Brooklyn Nine-Nine] in a funny but relevant way, you will definitely make me happy. The degree to which this is true varies by the quantity and quality of what you do. However, all of these things are entirely optional. You don’t have to do any of it if you don’t want to.
PF Judging Paradigm
PLEASE STRIKE ME IF YOU WANT TO RUN PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS OR BS EXTINCTION IMPACTS, OR IF YOU WANT TO SPREAD LIKE A MADMAN
I'm pretty strict when it comes to time. If you're more than a few seconds overtime, I'm just gonna stop flowing
First speaking team ONLY NEEDS to extend defense in summary that was frontlined in second rebuttal. Anything else auto-extends to final focus. If I didn’t allow this, the second-speaking team would have way too much strategic advantage. That being said, extending some very important defense to weigh/elaborate would be appreciated.
-I'm not the fastest flower, so please don’t just speak quickly for the sake of it and PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD. You can probably fit in the same amount of content by speaking slowly with good word economy.
-If you blatantly ignore my paradigm and choose to spread anyway, I will shout “CLEAR” if you are going too quickly for me, but I will only do it twice. You do it again, I’ll stop flowing and your speaks will go down.
Progressive Arguments (K, Disclosure Theory, T-Shells, plans, stupid massive link chains with extinction impacts, etc):
PF was literally created to avoid this kind of argumentation. That being said, I know it’s growing increasingly popular, so I’m willing to evaluate it in some forms:
1. Arguments about the role of the ballot and such, but only if they are dumbed down and made very intuitive. Just know that it will be a risk, and you will need to meet a higher standard than usual for me to evaluate these arguments.
2. Using theory in response to legitimate abuse by the other team, not just frivolous BS. I will give you the L if you do it for any other reason. I will also not understand the technical side of it, so explain the abuse intuitively and why you should win because of it.
However, run these arguments at your own expense. For the most part (again, not always) I feel as though they undermine the educational value of the debate.
General Debating Style:
-I'm a (mostly) classic flow judge, so signpost, collapse, weigh, extend summary to FF
-Weighing doesn’t just mean dropping buzz words like probability and magnitude, but be comparative. The best type of weighing is taking your opponents at their very best case, and still showing why you come out on top
-Please do not have tons of disads in your rebuttal. Constructive material is not meant to be in rebuttal, and when you layer disads in first rebuttal it's low-key abusive (though I'd accept a small disad maybe). Definitely not allowed in second rebuttal, because then it's way too late for the other team to respond.
-I will only accept new weighing in the final focus if there has been literally no other weighing in earlier speeches
-Frontlining by the second speaking team during rebuttal isn’t necessary. Do it if you want to or feel it’s strategic, don’t if you want to focus more on attacking their case.
-If you are going fast, please don’t card dump or unload like 30 turns just to go for one. I personally find that kind of argumentation to be abusive, and think it ruins the debate. I know it has become more common in recent years, but just know that I will probably lower your speaks if you do this.
-I default util for framework if nothing else is established/extended
-I couldn't care less if a random professor says something if you can't logically warrant it.
-I'm tech over truth until you start telling me complete BS like "Mexico is in Asia”, but if you come up and read absolutely stupid and unrealistic arguments (Ex: 99% of extinction impacts) I will be really annoyed. I’d be willing to vote on it, but the bar for responses will be much lower and I will be very disappointed that you weren’t willing to consider the full educational value of the debate.
-I am willing to award speaks based on flow debating and/or lay appeal. Having come from a largely lay circuit myself (prioritizing good speaking over technical debating skill), I understand that different circuits learn different types of debate. If you can simultaneously speak very well and have very good flow content, then you will almost certainly have high speaks.
-I’ll only call cards if someone asks me to or if it is highly contested throughout the round.
-Please don’t misrepresent it. If I catch you doing it, I’ll drop the card and dock speaks.
-If someone calls your card, try to get it up ASAP. If it takes too long I’ll drop the card.
Lastly, don’t be mean to anyone. Don’t consistently interrupt in crossfire, and don’t be rude/discriminatory/annoying to the other team in any way for any reason. You do any of that, speaks go down and you will probably lose my vote.
My name is Kenny Golson, I have judged PF Debate for quite a few years now in various contexts.
I explain my paradigm through DOs & DONTs:
1. Make note of contentions that are not addressed by your opponents in the rebuttal and crossfire segments of the match. Your summary speech is also acceptable.
2. For both constructive speeches, go slow. I want to write down your argument for my comprehension. Clearly state the topic sentence of each of your contentions.
2a. I follow your case as follows: Claim > Statistic & Evidence > Impact on Claim
Emphasize the numbers, if your stat outweighs your opponent you need to point that out throughout the course of the match. Make sure it’s relevant to your impact.
1. No lengthy quotations or unclear values unattached to the "who" or "what" in the Debate.
Be polite, kind and stay strong, I am easy-going and want this to be fun for everyone!
I am a lay parent judge with experience judging a couple of tournaments.
1. Speak at a conversational speed.
2. I give more importance to valid and well researched points.
4. Avoid repetition and use of technical terms.
5. Please do not take too much time to pull up called evidence. Be organized.
6. I consider cross to give speaker points so be confident but not too aggressive.
75% of my recent decisions have been made for the team who actually extended all of their links & a terminal impact from case. 20% have been who weighed better. do with that what you will.
in-round safety stuff:
read content warnings if your case has potentially triggering material (general guideline: suicide, domestic violence, sexual violence, anything structural violencey, mental health, terrorism, graphic descriptions of violence & suffering)
my email is at the bottom of this paradigm; please email me before the round if you need anything! this includes but is not limited to:
- accessibility concerns (I am happy to make any changes or in round accommodations you need so you can participate in the round)
- pronoun concerns (I am happy to ask all debaters in the round to use "they/them" pronouns to refer to everyone or engage in any other solution you feel is appropriate)
- if somebody's pronouns are on tab you're expected to use the correct ones. if you misgender somebody i'll dock speaks and autoL if it's continuous
- i don't know that i'm the best equipped to handle every unsafe situation but if something comes up feel free to message the chat/say something and i'll do my best to resolve it however i can within the scope of what a judge can do
i rarely end up voting for teams who extend 2 pieces of offense in summary and final focus. it makes the quality of both arguments worse, spend time on one piece of offense fleshing out your warrants, implicating your arg & weighing it if you want to win.
i don't coach, so explain topic jargon/abbreviations in case. also means i'm not up on the latest evidence indicts so explain them well
i prioritize argumentation/warrants over just extending cards.
framework - if a team gives me a framework & extends it in sum/ff i'll vote on it unless you explicitly respond & tell me how to vote instead. if you end the round with an unresolved framework debate you're basically just letting me choose which team to vote for based on which fw i prefer, so if you're down on the framework debate you should probably just try to link in.
turns - i'll only vote on them if they're extended with links, terminalized impacts & weighing. frontline them the speech after they're read
extensions - i care a lot about good extensions that completely extend every piece of the link chain + an impact. card names aren't enough, i need warrants. if you don't have links with warrants + your impact with warrants in summary and final focus i won't vote for you. you should usually only extend one offensive argument completely in summary & final focus, you can do more but it usually ends up meaning your extensions suffer and then i can't vote for you on either argument because neither is complete.
tech stuff - i usually won't vote for any type of theory. i don't know how to evaluate it correctly and i don't really think it belongs in pf, the speech times literally aren't long enough. i also can't flow faster than around 250 wpm. if your case/rebuttal are faster than that it's like probably fine as long as your warranting is super good in summary & ff so i can get what i missed
summaries - i don't need defense in first summary but i do need frontlining for terminal defense on whatever offense you're going for. if it's not in summary and final focus i won't evaluate it.
evidence - don't care how you format it/if you paraphrase, do whatever works for you. i usually won't call for it unless there's an unresolved issue
weighing - warrant it, do it.
feel free to ask other stuff at the beginning of the round!
please feel free to ask questions before/after the round (email is firstname.lastname@example.org)
I am a parent judge representing Regis High School in New York City. I have been judging debate for over three years at some of the larger regional tournaments, states, and local tournaments, judging principally Varsity PF, rounded out with a BQ qualifier and BQ nationals.
I work in finance. I'm familiar with basic debate jargon (turn, extend, etc.) but I'm certainly not a very 'debatey' judge. 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.
Parent judge with 4 years of experience, I do flow the entire round.
If possible, please make it easy for me, collapse or go for a very well explained turn. Keep in mind I am not a a pro and wont necessarily understand all the jargon and nuance.
1. yes - signpost; off-time roadmaps, extending from SUM to FF;
2. warrants > blips = I will have a hard time voting for poorly explained arguments;
3. no - spreading, anything new in 2nd SUM or FF; Kritik; Theory;
4. Happy to skip grand-X if you are...
I consider myself a lay judge. I will follow the flow of the debate and make notes accordingly, though I may or may not follow everything in the round if the speed of the debate is too fast. I also value quality speaking in conjunction with good argumentation, but not in place of.
I was a policy debater at Bronx Science in the 1980s and currently run the upper school public forum debate team at Nightingale Bamford. I flow and can handle speed, as long as it is clear. I listen to crossfire, but do not flow it. If there is something important said in CF that you need to win, please apply it during your next speech. No new arguments in summary or final focus, please. Also, it makes me a little crazy when people call for a million cards, and/or when a team takes 10 minutes to find evidence. You can be on the internet now and everyone is working off computers--there is really no reason on earth not to be able to provide your evidence if called for.
Lastly, and most importantly, I like debaters to clearly explain their arguments, and to weigh them. In a perfect round, debaters would be assertive but polite, enjoy themselves, and make it easy for me to know how to vote by weighing in the back end of the round. Overviews are find and can help frame things if there is something you want to emphasize, etc. Mostly just be clear and imagine what you would like to RFD to say....then say that ;-) Good luck and know how important this activity is and how much respect we judges have for you all. Best of luck.
I am an upper school teacher and a trained lay judge. Please speak clearly and address one another's points comprehensively.
Please be civil and courteous during the entire round, including cross-fire and rebuttals. I am fine with each of you keeping time, ok if you use your phone for the timer. Please have your cards ready to present within an appropriate amount of time so the rounds aren’t slowed down.
I discourage spreading… I would much rather see a concise and analytical presentation rather than simply speeding through your material. You can run theory and kritiks but do not expect me to understand and evaluate them. Clear signposting and quantifiable impacts are important to me.
27: Average Speaker
28: Good Job!
29: Very good speaker
30: You wowed me
I am a parent judge.
During the round, please speak clearly and slowly so that I can understand your arguments. Please refrain from using debate jargon and explain your arguments thoroughly; anything that goes unexplained might not be taken into account. Make sure to signpost and clarify if you drop any points. I will prioritize clarity. Also, make sure to time yourselves, and please put evidence in the chat so I can see it as well.
Weighing is vital. Tell me why you believe you won the debate and on what points specifically.
Finally, please be courteous to all participants and have fun.
Hello! My name is Carolyn Hohl and I am a first year at Wellesley College. I use she/her pronouns and my email is email@example.com. Feel free to email me if you have any questions or if you have any concerns during the round.
I did PF in high school.
Here is some information that will help you in round:
Please make sure to have your evidence ready. It makes it super annoying when the whole round has to stop for someone to find a card. Please take no longer than 1 minute to find your card for an opponent, and no longer than 2 minutes to find a card for me.
Please cut your cards!! Don’t hand me a giant file and expect me/your opponent to command F your evidence.
I would appreciate being copied on any emails, especially if you are sending evidence via email. I would prefer evidence to be shared via a google doc.
PLEASE weigh. Higher levels of debate need weighing because both teams will likely still have offence in FF.
Please also don’t just throw out ~weighing terms~ to make everything sound more cool and academic, I appreciate quality weighing over the quantity of weighing.
Please sign post! You should be writing my flow for me. I am also judging this tournament (most likely) because I am helping my high school out, so I really don’t want to have to trudge through a ton of jargon to find your point.
I don’t particularly want to deal with people spreading. If you really think you need to do it, or if I really don’t understand what you are saying, I will ask for a speech doc.
I will allow an off time roadmap but it needs to be only 20 seconds long.
Flow: I judge 99% on the flow. Theory/K's are fine... if I really don’t understand your theory/think it's an insignificant argument I will flat out tell you so that the debate doesn’t come down to something I can’t track.
Some other information:
I came from a high school with a small debate program that did not have a coach, so I ask that there is either one coach from each team in the room or no coaches in the room during a debate. It’s really important to me that everyone has fair access to debate, so please respect this.
On a similar note, please make sure that you are kind to each other. If there is any bigotry or something that you are uncomfortable with in round, please email me and I will immediately stop the round. Especially for this Jan topic..just be kind to each other.
Please be kind to me. I always disclose and do a verbal RFD because I always appreciated judges that did. However, please respect my decision post round, and don’t be rude to me if the round did not go your way.
I am a lay judge. Make sure your arguments are comprehensible, and be respectful.
Background: I did PF and a little bit of Congress in high school.
- I don't flow crossfire, so bring up anything important in speech.
- Anything in FF must be in Summary.
- No off time roadmaps, just signpost in speech.
- I will (try to) flow, so signpost and no spreading.
- Collapse and weigh in the back half.
- You need to be extending warrants + impacts for me to evaluate the argument at the end.
- You will be making opposing claims, but explain why I should prefer your argument over theirs.
- I don't understand theory / Ks, but do say something if you think an argument, framework, etc. is abusive.
All other standards of a decent human being exist in the debate round.
I debated for Lake Mary Prep for 3 years in high school
I am not well read on the topic.
Speed is tolerated but not recommended. Warrants and links are highly recommended.
Good luck have fun.
I will be paying attention to crossfire, unless I am obligated to write down comments within the ballot. I believe that crossfire is a key part of the debate round, and any concessions and answers to questions will be binding. If you want something from crossfire to be on the flow, however, mention it in a speech.
I believe that defense should be somewhat sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required.
This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.
Extensions of Defense:
With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more.
More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.
Second summary should definitely be extending defense, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and factor it into my decision.
Extensions of Offense:
an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances
keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)
Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.
don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.
I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well with this in mind, as there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.
1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.
2. There are competing interpretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.
3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.
Finally, I require qualifications of sources. Saying Smith 19 doesn't quite do it for me, who is smith and why should i trust his opinion? Oral citations should preferably include Last name, qualification, and the date. If you don't read qualifications, which can be as basic as the website you are citing from, your speaker points won't be over a 28.5
You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.
Tech vs Truth:
i'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well.
Please don't say judge or refer to me in the round. If you say "judge" over 5 times in one speech I'll make an angry face.
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!
Hi! I did a lot of Congress and Worlds for over 4 years and compete in college APDA now. Basically, be super clear, do A LOT of weighing, and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. I'm not super big on theory and I need to see cards/evidence for your arguments.
Don't be rude! Have fun in the round!
My mom has told me repeatedly that she “hates PF” because of the speed, blippy arguments and jargon. She is as lay as they come, which means you should be using well warranted arguments and should slow down for your speeches. My mom will be very sad if you use lots of debate jargon like delink, turn or non unique. She will also be very sad if you use any form of prog debate.
please debate lay and you will be fine
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.
"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion
UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)
Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.
Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.
Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.
Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.
I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.
If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.
I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.
People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!
I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.
So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.
It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.
I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.
Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.
Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.
If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.
Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.
I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.
I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.
I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.
I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (firstname.lastname@example.org).
The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.
Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!
Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.
Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.
POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.
Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.
Weird Aside on Evidence
Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.
I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.
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 have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.
Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.
I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.
Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.
Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com
I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect, and I also expect all audience members to treat every participant in a round with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are NOT JUST ARGUMENTS, they are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder for the second time, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged as much as anyone my age, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I have not judged much during the pandemic so please start a little slower and work up to your top speed and please articulate. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic and I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.
The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.
Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.
Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.
Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.
Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.
Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school rather than going post-modern.
The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.
Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments in the round.
Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have to use my own.
Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.
Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.
Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments in a densely packed theory paragraph. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I don't especially like disclosure theory arguments because I am not in a position to judge what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.
The Resolution -- PF mostly still debates the resolution, which is one of the things I really like about the activity. Please make sure you do debate the resolution when debating in front of me. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.
Framework -- This is beginning to be a thing in PF in some places. I am perfectly willing to consider a lens through which I can look at the arguments in the debate, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you decide to use one.
Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.
Paraphrasing -- I really wish the NSDA had decided to kill paraphrasing in PF. When someone paraphrases inaccurately, I have a huge problem with it. I expect debaters to be able to immediately access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should not need to be an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where they drew their paraphrasing from. Taking a 150 page article and making a claim from that is not paraphrasing. You must be able to point to the exact place your argument is based upon, within seconds of being asked to do so, or I am unlikely to consider the evidence in my decision.
Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read needs to say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.
Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive, I don't think that PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer not be true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.
My name is Meg Kandarpa, and I am a Cornell ILR student in the Class of '23. I currently debate for Cornell in British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. (It seems counterintuitive to list BP qualifications on a site that is not used for BP but if you truly want to know ask me).
In high school, I primarily partook in APDA/parliamentary debate but also competed in world schools, congress, public forum, and MUN/speech.
My judging paradigm is relatively simple - If the round doesn't say it, then I don't judge in it (this is 100% based off the flow - not my intuition). This includes not pointing out contradictions, missing links, and other case failures. I'm not one who believes in "punishment judging" - eg if a first speech fails to provide a needed definition, I don't take "away" points.
Refutation is also a good practice - direct responses to teams and telling me why you win also does help!
Also - please weigh/impact. I always see myself questioning "so what" at the end of most cases. Don't let that be your case.
If there's any way I can make the round more accessible for you in any way please don't hesitate to let me know before (or even during) the round.
Specificities to Online Debate (Credit to a University of Rochester buddy - Ali Abdullah who wrote this)
Please please slow down a bit; online debate certainly isn't conducive to blazing fast speeds (especially when most of y'all aren't even enunciating properly in person). This doesn't mean you can't speak fast, just be sure to slow down enough that I can make out every word you're saying. I'll try to tell you if I can't comprehend you but chances are by the time I do I've already missed something important.
Please try avoiding speaking over each other during CX; I love heated CX but 2+ people with their microphones on become incomprehensible in an online setting.
On video, you certainly don't have to have it turned on when I'm judging you. There are a multitude of reasons for this from privacy reasons to personal comfort, etc. Basically, you do you. I may also ask you to turn your video off if my internet is being slow, but I'll never ask you to turn it on. I find myself paying infinitely more attention to what you say and the tone/form in which you say it than your facial expressions anyway.
On that note, my video will most likely be on as it makes me stay connected and focused - and for debaters to feel comforted knowing that I am not watching Netflix in round. I never make facial expressions when I'm judging anyway so it wouldn't really be useful to y'all in that sense.
I make it effort when doing introductions to offer a space for pronoun preferences. This is by no means required, but helpful if needed. If someone discloses pronouns or doesn't - always best to defer to the speaking position over assumptions.
I'm all for heated debates, but behavior that can frankly be determined as just jerkish is not something I stand for. This includes aggressively cutting debaters off, excessive facial expressions (if it's that ludicrous, 99% sure I caught it as well) and any generalizations/insinuations towards an entire group of people.
Again - generalizations of groups of people - bad and unpersuasive. That goes for debate, and just life advice while we are at it.
Cheers, and thanks to all who have read this far (good luck if I'm judging you!)
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.
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 a novice LD judge.
i am a parent judge. please add me to the email chain and before speeches, email both your case and rebuttal documents so that I can better read/follow along and understand everything in online debate: email@example.com.
please speak clearly, and be respectful during crossfire.
Hi, I'm a parent judge
I would like you to do the following.
1. Speak slowly and clearly. I take notes so this lets me catch everything you're saying and gives you a better chance of winning.
2. Please don't use debate jargon. I'm very unfamiliar with it.
3. Be polite and respectful.
4. I value Quality > Quantity. Don't dump a lot of responses. Please implicate them well telling me why they matter and why I should vote off of it.
5. Please keep track of your own time and be honest about it.
I have had 6 years of experience judging for various schools. I first started judging for Mission San Jose High School and am now judging for Stonewall Academy. The majority of my judging has been in Public Forum and I am familiar in the fundamental concepts of the format.
I always come in with an open mind and vote based off of each side's arguments rather than personal bias. In order to win the round it is important that each side weighs each of their impacts. If impacts aren't weighed I won't flow them. If you want higher speaker points and want me to be able to flow your arguments, it is important that you speak clearly and at a good pace. I also appreciate it if you give me a little background into the topic and clear up a few things. Each side should provide a standard for me to weigh on so I can vote for a side based on the impacts. Both sides can also argue which standard is more relevant to the debate and which I should be judging on. If neither side proposes a standard for the debate I will just be judging on which side makes the world a better place. As for links, make sure that your links are logical and aren't huge jumps. If you suddenly jump from the EU joining the BRI to a nuclear war, I won't buy it. Please don't run theory. I will only take it into account if it is actually justified and reasonable (which it almost never is). Lastly, if a side brings up a new argument or point in Final Focus, I will ignore it. You're just going to be wasting your time.
I will reward a debater with more speaker points if they remain clear and speak at an understandable pace. I dislike spreading as I feel its unnecessary. It is also important that each speaker is respectful in crossfire and other speeches. If any debater starts yelling and is overly aggressive I will lower their total speaker points for the round.
If you have any other questions feel free to ask me during the round. I hope you provide me with an interesting debate!
I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and be respectful of your opponents.
I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.
Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.
I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.
I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.
If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. I believe that defense is somewhat sticky.
I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.
As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.
Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.
Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact withtout warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.
The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.
DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!
DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.
And finally progressive debate-I really don't have preferences for progressive arguments, except that you do them correctly, and are not using them as a gimmick to win a round. I will evaluate Ks and theory, but they are not a huge part of debate in my state in PF, run at your own risk.
I'm a lay judge; speak slowly and clearly so I can understand your arguments. It's helpful when you front-line and give implications in your speeches. Make sure to weigh in summary and final focus. Be respectful to your opponents.
Please do not run theory or any type of progressive arguments on me. Follow tournament guidelines (such as keeping your camera on all the time, if the rule is to do so).
Looking forward to listening to your round!
Apologies, due to technical difficulties I will not have my camera on but I will be listening attentively. Please time yourselves.
I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and understandably, at a reasonable pace. I will not be able to follow if you speed talk.
Strong, concise evidence is very important, but you must provide proper warranting for me to vote off of your argument.
The more interaction there is between the two teams the better. Please do not simply repeat the same responses, instead come up with new ones that show that you understand and are listening to your opponent.
Most importantly, please be respectful and polite at all times. If you are rude, I will lower your speaker points. If you are offensive, you will lose the round.
Look forward to hearing the debate!
I am a parent judge with limited experience, so apologies in advance. Outside of debate, I work as a law professor and am fairly familiar with following complex arguments, weighing evidence, and assessing logical soundness.
Debate: Please remember I don't have the preparation you do, so talk slow and be understandable. I most likely won't let you know you're going too fast in a round, only after in my comments. I'm not knowledgeable of debate jargon/abbreviations, so please clarify and assume I have no previous knowledge of what you're talking about. I will time you if I remember, but to be safe, time yourself and your opponents (if you don't want them taking extra time). Otherwise, just be respectful and have fun.
I am a lay judge, and this is my second tournament judging.
I do not understand progressive arguments such as theory, K, counterplans, etc. Similarly, please do not spread—I will not understand. However, I will do my best to follow along and take notes.
Please give big picture overviews that explain how the arguments in the round interact, and clash with your opponent’s arguments.
Name: Lillian Lung
School Affiliation: Stuyvesant High School
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: One
Please signpost, say "the impact is...", and please, no prog. Personally, not a fan of low probability arguments.
I was an LD circuit debater in the 1990s when LD was slower but still evidence-based. After a hiatus from debate to complete a B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. in history (plus two years in-between teaching high school science), I became a history teacher and the debate coach at Phillips Exeter Academy in 2011. While PEA had mostly competed in Parli before I arrived, I'm slowly making NSDA debate, and PF in particular, a major commitment at the school.
In my opinion, the fundamentals of debate are the same for every event: do you have a clear "thesis" for why your side should win? Do you offer sub-arguments and evidence to support that thesis? Do you address the arguments and evidence of the other side? You won't (easily) win my ballot without these three questions answered. Debate is also about clear communication to address the previous three questions. That doesn't mean you can't talk fast or use jargon, but if those aspects of your performance take away from the fundamental logic of your arguments, you're not being a clear communicator.
In conclusion, I approach debate as an educator who strongly believes in the pedagogical value of the activity. Please debate in a way that proves me right about the value of debate, instead of making me doubt my commitment to the activity.
Hi, I'm Alan! I'm a parli debater at Columbia University, and debated for NCSSM and Ardrey Kell in high school. I had 3 years of LD experience and a little bit of PF. I'm from a fairly lay circuit, so im definitely on the lay end of the LD spectrum. Feel free to ask me specifics on what I'm comfortable evaluating.
***For lay tournaments: tips for a more enjoyable round
I do not time speeches or prep. Time yourself and your opponent.
Good analytics > poorly explained evidence
Explicit extensions of contentions in 1AR/2NR
Defense is sticky
Impact to framework in (basically) every speech: make the framework matter
2NR should include explicit voters. 2AR should be almost all voters and weighing.
Please signpost. Make it very clear which argument you are responding to, and under which contention it falls.
DO NOT make me listen to a value debate. There is no meaningful difference between morality and justice, and 90% of the values ran. Just agree on value and debate the value criterion
If you're spreading add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I like lay debate.
I like LARP and theory/T, and feel comfortable judging those debates. Cx checks please.
I don't like trix but I can judge them. Pretty low threshold for responses.
If you're a K debater please overexplain everything. I'm familiar with some of the common K's but for your safety you should probably assume I know nothing about what you're running. If you're looking at who to strike I'm probably up there.
Don't be rude or act obnoxiously.
If I end up judging PF you can basically run and do whatever you want. I do not flow cross and do not listen to grand. I'm a fan of disclosure. I find that a lot of PF teams don't weigh and impact as much as I would like. Explain to me why I should vote for you, write my ballot for me. Tell me what is important in the round and why it's important.
Besides that, feel free to debate in the way you prefer. If you have any questions, you're welcome to email me at email@example.com or ask me at the beginning of the round.
Hi! I’m a 5th year parent judge. So while I have experience judging I am still a “lay” judge.
Please do not speak too quickly, or else I won’t be able to take complete notes to give all the credit you deserve.
I will vote for whichever side convinces me the most based off their evidence and argument.
Hello! My name is Tian. I am a lay judge and this tournament is my fourth time judging.
- do not spread, if you spread I will likely miss important information
- try not use debate jargon
- signpost when possible
- give an offtime 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence. You don't get to give someone a link and say CTRL F yourself. Prepare your evidence correctly or be dropped.
If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round
TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 7 years since then. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below
Philosophy of Debate:
Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.
I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told
Judge preferences that must be met:
When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters must signpost every argument and every response (Parli). If you don’t tell me where to flow, I won’t write your argument. You also must have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.
Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)
Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.
Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.
Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.
Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” in round and you do not comply, there is a good chance you will lose. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.
I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.
I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.
Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.
Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.
Public Forum specifics:
I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.
I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.
Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.
Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.
Lincoln Douglass and Policy:
I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.
Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com
I prefer that you do not speak quickly. You must be respectful to your opponents. If you are not respectful to your opponents, your speaker points will fall substantially and you may even lose the debate entirely.
Hi! I am a parent judge. I like students to present cases that cover the the most pertinent arguments for a topic. The presentation should be clear and easy to follow, supported by strong evidence. The debaters should be active and make strong comments and responses during cross. Debaters should be respectful throughout. Clearly tell me in summary and final focus why your team has done the strongest job, be specific. Please weigh your arguments against your opponents! Good luck and have fun!
I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013 and I do flow.
State the resolution (amazing how many forget to). I like frameworks but they're not musts. Introduce important acronyms.
When it comes to evidence, I look for quality over quantity. Be clear about sources ("Smith of Harvard" doesn't tell me much) and how the evidence supports your claim. I will ask to see evidence if I sense it's been misused.
Please weigh in summary and especially final focus.
Speak clearly. I'm not a fan of spreading.
Parent Judge - that tells you a lot.
-I value intelligent thought-process. “Winning” a contention is less important than showing well-researched warrants and logical links to key impacts.
-Do you acknowledge the other side’s argument? You will likely debate both sides of today’s topic, so you know there are good contentions on both sides.
-I could tell you my philosophy on speech speed (s-l-o-w d-o-w-n) ; warranting (show off your warrants and explain them) ; theory arguments (save your breath) ; timing (time yourself, 15-sec grace) ; turns (wonderful), ; collapsing for weighing (I like, you don’t have to) ; etc, but that would imply I know what all these terms mean. I’m not here to judge your knowledge of debate rules but to judge your respectful delivery of summaries and weighs.
-Be nice. The most intelligent people in the room are your teammate and your opponents. Not me. So treat them as such if you want to have a chance of winning. Did I mention, be kind.
Even professional judges get their decisions wrong 5-10% of the time. Expect volunteers like me to be more incompetent but friendlier.
Have fun with a fun topic.
cosby '21 fsu '25
put me on the email chain email@example.com
for those who care: qualled to toc senior year and broke at most tournaments I attended that year, placed at states as well
I used to have people read a 30 speaks blip but honestly it just forces teams to take time out of constructive and some teams just didn't know what to do with it so ima just give everyone 30s for now on, just remember, speaks are rlly bad and subjective (however if you misgender, read sensitive content without a cw, or are any -ist, you get 25s so keep that in mind)
let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout
feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are
i will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise.
please read an opt-in cw for any argument that may contain sensitive content, if you don't and a team reads cw theory I honestly don't see myself ever not voting for it. when in doubt err on the side of reading one.
how do i decide who i vote for?
first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)
next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are bad
then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability) i also look to framing at this step if there is any and apply that as well. also on weighing, the most convincing and best weighing is link-ins and prereq weighing, this prob comes before any other generic mechanisms
paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing. if someone calls for ev and u send an 80 page pdf and tell me to control f something and read around it im not evaluating your ev. its really not that hard to just copy and paste that paragraph and highlight what your reading.
theory and ks are fine, just realize i wasn't really a prog debater in high school so take that as you will but I do know how to understand them. just please dont run trix, i hate them.
for theory i default to competing interps and no rvis
ks are fine, just know i prob wont be able to evaulute them as well compared to a lder or policy debater that actively ran them
most importantly i want to make debate an inclusive space where everyone can have a fun and educational time so please let me know if there is anything i can do to make the space more accessible
hello! I debated all through high school, first at grantsville high and then rowland hall my senior year. currently, I debate at Lewis and Clark in Oregon, and on occasion I help coach at rowland hall. you are more than welcome to share your preferred pronouns before round, but only if you are comfortable doing so :)
my main, most important judging philosophy beliefs:
-weigh! This is most important for me. Use phrases like “their biggest impact in the round is X, our impact Y is more important because Z” if you don’t do this, that means I get to decide which teams impacts I like more (I will also be sad)
-collapse collapse collapse. please. you only hurt yourself by trying to go for every word said in the round. choose what’s most important and only go for that!
-this should go without saying, but ANY racist, homophobic, sexist or hateful comments or arguments will not only hurt your speaker points SEVERELY, you most likely can expect to lose.
-just because you don’t have a carded response to something your opponent said does not mean you cannot have a decent analytical response. I’ll listen to those analytical responses over any shitty card.
-please, for the love of god, warrant your responses. Tell me WHY a study concludes something, don’t just give me their results. Good warrants go with good arguments.
how I determine speaker points:
-not abusing prep time and being ready to debate quickly before round will improve your points.
-doing weighing, collapsing and warranting effectively is the best and easiest way to get high speaks with me in the back of the room.
-I won’t be listening to cross ex, so if you are being rude enough to warrant my attention, your speaker points will reflect that.
other parts of my paradigm that are slightly more technical:
-theory (for me) in pf is fine. you should only be using this if your opponent does something egregiously unfair, and not to fill up time or show me that you did ld/policy. if you do read theory, you should only be going for that and it’s your burden to prove how your opponent framed you out of the debate.
-speed is fine. if I can’t understand you, than you should slow down.
-road maps should be concise, youre telling me what sheets I should start on, not making arguments.
-terminal defense does not need to be extended in first summary for it to be in final focus, unless second speaking rebuttal responded to it. i will be more likely to weight defense of it is in both first summary and final focus, but it’s not required.
-Gavin Serr was once my coach, so his paradigm is another good place to look for more info on how I feel about debate.
Have more than one year experience in debate judge. As a senior leader in my current organization, I host and present several meetings globally. My goal is deliver right contents to the audience, demonstrate appropriate body language, keep the audience interested by not repeating the contents, have a constant eye contact, modulation of voice, using the right speed and pronunciations to deliver the contents effectively.
During the judging process, I take notes and compare the notes for providing points, my rationale and feedback. I look for passion from the students on the topics they debate. This will show their hard work and how involved in the topics.
Debated PF for Lakeville. I study Data Science at Wisconsin.
I’ll do my best to make the correct technical decision in every round. Feel free to contact/post round if you disagree with my decision.
I vastly prefer email chains to google docs - firstname.lastname@example.org
Read content warnings. Do not use expletives without a content warning.
Crossfire is bad. It is not binding, and I generally don't listen. Please use this time to ask legitimate clarifying questions.
I flow extensions and actually care about them being good.
Have cards. If I have to sift through a random article to find out what part of it you're talking about I'm likely to just pretend the argument is an analytic.
Warrants need to exist.
Frontline in second rebuttal.
Defense isn’t sticky. Some very rare exceptions.
Speed is fine. However, reading very quickly from paraphrased docs will tank your speaks and annoy me, if you intend on going fast the least you can do is read from cut cards. "Direct quotes" aren't cut cards.
Collapse to as few arguments as possible.
Voting where debaters tell me to vote >>> Voting where I personally think you messed up
I prefer debaters who call out their opponent’s mistakes.
If everyone is making mistakes, I generally try to give each side some risk of offense and attempt to vote off of clash/defense/weighing.
Given no other option I presume neg unless told otherwise.
How I resolve weighing
Absent comparison by debaters themselves:
I value well-warranted prereq, short circuit, and link-in arguments most.
For obvious reasons I prefer conceded, warranted, and comparative weighing.
I generally prefer weighing introduced earlier in the round.
I vote off the flow but it’s likely I don’t know the nuances of your specific category so break stuff down for me.
I would honestly prefer to judge a substance round. This being said:
I will vote for any argument you win and weigh. I’ve personally debated theory a lot more than Ks. Frivolous theory and tricks are usually bad and my threshold for responses is pretty low.
I personally think that disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. In high school I read from cut cards in rebuttal, and open sourced disclosed. This doesn’t mean I will hack for these arguments.
RVI debates are annoying. You shouldn't win for being fair, but you should win if you sufficiently prove that the interp is net bad. Feel free to argue about this in round.
These people taught me debate:
Flex prep, skipping grand, off time road maps, informal clothing, etc. is chill.
I reserve the right to drop you for making the space unsafe.
I also reserve the right to drop you for blatantly violating NSDA or tournament rules. Fabricating or egregiously misrepresenting evidence is basically always an instant loss.
What's up y'all, I'm Kian. In high school, I debated for Chaska for 4 years, spending my first three years on the MN local circuit and my senior year on the nat circuit. During my senior year, I got a few bids and reached eliminations rounds at TOC, NCFL, and NSDA.
I'm not saying I take bribes, but I am very receptive to frameworks that argue that I should vote for the team that pays me the most money.
TL;DR: I'm a standard tech judge who likes weighing, big brain strategies, good evidence ethics, and not being mean to your opponents. Just read the bolded stuff if you can't read the whole thing.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com.
Novices scroll to the bottom of the paradigm to read your specific section
I'll put this at the top, because I think it's what gets neglected the most. Implicate! Please implicate all of your arguments and explicitly tell me how each argument you are winning should factor into my ballot. The best speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me, and if I come to a decision that you disagree with, chances are its because you didn't implicate your arguments as well as you should have.
Tech>Truth, but the less warranted and more outlandish the argument is, the lower my threshold for responses will be.
I'll evaluate anything as long as it's well warranted, weighed, and not racist, sexist, anti-semitic, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary
I can generally handle speeds up to 300 wpm. I'd prefer you stay under that, but if you do decide to go over please send a speech doc. I'll do my best, however, If I can't understand an argument, I won't vote on it.
Everything (Offense, Defense, Turns, DAs, Weighing, and Theory) must be answered the speech after the argument was presented (excluding case). The only way to recover from dropping an argument is to either weigh out of it or implicate something you are winning. In short, I think dropped defense is infinitely sticky.
I evaluate weighing first and then look to the team that best links into that weighing. If there's no one winning under that weighing, I'll go to the second most important, weighed argument and repeat the process.
Please let me know if you need accommodations (can't handle spreading, need speech docs, need me to time for you, etc)
When timing, I'll stop flowing after the first sentence over the time limit, anything after won't be evaluated
I'll always disclose, assuming it doesn't disrupt the tournament. I think debaters should be able to understand and question judge decisions so that they can improve.
If both teams agree before the round on some rule that's not in the NSDA rules (no grand cross, anyone can talk during any cross, etc) I'll evaluate the round with that rule in place. Otherwise, I'll evaluate the round normally.
If you believe my RFD doesn't reflect the beliefs held in my paradigm feel free to tell me, and we can talk about it.
If any of this doesn't make sense, I think Nathaniel Yoon, Zayne El-Kaissi, Christian Vasquez, Dan Bagwell, Bryce Piotrowski, and Maddie Cook are all excellent judges.
Other Tech Preferences
1. I like Off time roadmaps, but you should still signpost in speech
2. Warranted Uncarded responses are better than Unwarranted Carded Responses
3. If you read a link turn and impact turn and are called out on it, then you'll be in trouble
4. Collapse If you go for every argument you make, chances are each will be unwarranted, underweighed, and you probably won't be able to cover your opponent's arguments very effectively. Smart collapse strategies will be rewarded in ballots and speaks.
5. Case extensions must have both cards and warrants You don't need to extend every card and link, but you should be able to extend the basics of the uniqueness, link, and impact
6. Summary-final focus parallelism This is a must. Anything that you want me to evaluate must be in summary and final focus. The only exception is new weighing that is made in the second summary can be responded to in the first final focus. Additionally, new weighing in the first final can be answered in the second final, which means that starting weighing in the first final is probably a bad idea as the other team gets free responses to it that the first speaking team can't answer. Also, new weighing in the second final won't be evaluated unless it's the only weighing that's made in the round.
7. New responses in the second final focus make me sad. They won't be evaluated and I'll drop speaks
8. I don't flow cross, any important concessions must be restated in speech for it to be evaluated
PF evidence ethics is literally so bad lmao like it's crazy; I expect that evidence is represented properly.
Evidence must be cut, cited, and available within 2 minutes of calling for it before I start running prep. Obviously, I'll make exceptions if teams call for like 10 cards, but if that's the case you should prob just send a speech doc.
If I call for a piece of evidence and it's a link to a screenshot of google calculator, I will literally lose my mind. And it hurts that I have to even say this.
I understand that not all teams know what cut cards are (I know I didn't until my junior year), however, teams should still have, at the bare minimum, the link and the paragraph(s) being cited at request. Just sending a link and saying to control f makes the round take literally forever, and I'll drop speaks because of it.
I like it when teams read cut cards. I'll give +.5 speaks if it's done in constructive and +1 speaks if it's done in rebuttal, just make sure you tell me before I submit my ballot
I like it when teams disclose. I'll give +.5 speaks to both debaters if they disclose on the ndca wiki, just make sure you tell me before I submit my ballot
Regarding evidence indites. Saying "this evidence says their evidence is bad" is not an indite. Be sure to explain why the methodology of their evidence is flawed in some way.
Regarding evidence comparisons I think it's really silly when teams just say "my evidence comes from Harvard therefore it's better" or "my evidence is more recent therefore it's better" without explaining why that matters. I'll only evaluate evidence comparisons if a team implicates why the credibility or recency comparison matters; ie by saying "this post date matters because x thing has changed"
Calling for evidence. I'll only call for evidence if a team explicitly tells me to or I get conflicting claims of what the evidence actually says.
Weighing is my personal favorite part of the debate. I think it's one of the only points of the round where teams must rely on their big brains as opposed to evidence, and it makes my decisions sooooooo much easier when it's done well. With that, I have a few preferences
1. Make Weighing Comparative - this means saying stuff like "our argument outweighs on magnitude because it affects millions of people" isn't weighing. A weighing argument must prove why you do meet the metric of your weighing in addition to why your opponents don't meet that metric. ie saying "our argument outweighs on magnitude because we affect millions of people while they only affect thousands"
2. Please make link ins comparative- Saying that your argument independently links into their argument isn't enough. You must explain why your link to their impact is better than theirs. An example would be "recessions link into climate change because they cause governments to look inwards, preventing them from addressing international issues like climate change. Prefer our link in over their case on scope as they only solve for one cause of climate change whereas international regulation solves for multiple."
3. The earlier the better - makes my life a lot easier when the weighing debate starts in rebuttal or summary instead of in final focus
4. Strength of Link weighing- I think this argument is kinda dumb, but that won't stop me from voting on it, but I'm predisposed to believe that as long as a team wins their argument it doesn't matter if there was defense on it, so you'll have to tell me otherwise if you want me to evaluate the arg.
5. I like metaweighing- makes my life easier and simplifies the weighing debate don't be afraid to try it.
6. Weigh everything- Weighing turns, frontlines, backlines, and pieces of evidence in addition to case will put you waaaaaaaaaaay ahead on the flow and will likely be reflected in my ballot.
Being an originally traditional debater, my exposure and experience with progressive arguments are limited to two theory rounds. That being said, I've been exposed to enough theory that I feel comfortable evaluating it effectively.
Without being told otherwise, I default to
1. Competing Interpretations
2. Yes RVIs-
I think that without RVIs it's almost impossible for the team that theory is read on to win because they have to win both the theory and substance, while the team running the theory only has to win one. Additionally, I think RVIs check back against frivolous theory. On a more truthful level, if you really want to set a norm in the debate space, then you should be going for it whenever you read it.
Theory should be read in the speech after the violation, and theory about out of round violations should happen in constructive.
Additionally, here are my preferences on common shells. I won't not vote on ones I don't agree with, but I of course have my biases.
Interps I Like: Paraphrasing bad, disclosure, trigger warnings
Interps I Don't Like: Paraphrasing good, Big School theory, anything obviously frivolous (like shoe theory).
K's- I have no experience debating or writing K's. However, I don't want to deter you from running them. I just recommend that you make sure the K is slow, clear and that the different parts of the arguments are differentiated and implicated so that I can evaluate the argument to the best of my abilities.
For other progressive arguments not mentioned, I know so little about these things that I wouldn't even know what to do with them. You're better off not reading them in front of me.
Speaker Points (stolen from my good friend Ekaanth Veerakumar)
Some judges really are tripping with their inflated speaker points.
Speaker points start at 28 and go up or down based on smart collapsing, being funny, clever argumentation, well-thought-out responses, well-warranted extensions, good non-robotic speaking, and CROSS.
This was stated under "Evidence" but I'll say it here since it applies
I like it when teams read cut cards. I'll give +.5 speaks if it's done in constructive and +1 speaks if it's done in rebuttal, just make sure you tell me before I submit my ballot
I like it when teams disclose. I'll give +.5 speaks to both debaters if they disclose on the ndca wiki, just make sure you tell me before I submit my ballot.
If you come from a genuinely small school program (one or two varsity teams total), then I'll start you .2 higher. I know your struggle and y'all are amazing for pushing through just make sure you tell me before I submit my ballot
Two Notes for less points:
1. If you call for an ungodly amount of cards that I see no strategic reason for, then I'll tank you .2
2. If I catch you stealing prep, then I'll tank you .2
All of this is linear not logistic, the more cards or time you waste the worse the tanking will be.
Generally here's your bar (Unless I'm judging novices in which case everything will be lowered accordingly)
29.5-30: Pleaaaaase give me a shoutout when your in finals of this tournament about to win
29-29.5: Have fun at the TOC I'm rooting for you
28.5-29: Wild out in elims
28-28.5: There's a chance you'll break, I hope you do
27-28: Y'all got the potential to pop off so get back to drilling and prepping if you want to.
26-27: You made some serious strategic and speaking errors that costed you the round massively or made you barely edge out a win, you need to correct them soon.
20-25: You've done something problematic in round
Most of what I said above won't apply to y'all, but feel free to ask any questions you may have. Generally, for your rounds I'll expect you to follow these things
1. Understand your argument and your evidence- If a team asks you about the claim behind your arguments, be sure you can explain it as well as address the attacks they make against it
2. Be sure to not repeat your case, but to defend it against the other team's responses
3. Make sure that your summary and final focus are similar. It's generally unfair for the opponents and confusing for your judges if the summary talks about some arguments and the final focus talks about completely different ones. Remember y'all are working as a team and your speeches should reflect that
Good luck, y'all are sure to become great debaters in the future if you keep working hard.
I know it's a lot but feel free to ask any questions before the round. I look forward to judging y'all! Good luck and Have fun!
I have no background in high school or college debate, but I have been a practicing attorney for more than 30 years and have been judging PF debates for 6 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.
hi! I did PF in high school. Here's some things about my judging.
1. Do whatever you want. I suggest you frontline in second rebuttal, but I don't really care. Just don't be racist, sexist, or otherwise problematic.
2. I want to make the debate as accessible and fun as possible. If there's anything you want to try or that you've seen in other rounds or in other people's paradigms that seems fun, we can try it as long as your opponents are okay with it.
3. My knowledge of K lit is very limited. I'm down to judge a K round but act like I don't know anything.
4. Debate is meant to be a communication activity. While I will judge any style of debating, I will give speaker points based on your communication skills. I will only vote for an argument if it’s warrant is clearly extended. It’s your job to make sure I catch everything you want me to flow throughout the round.
5. If you think I made a bad decision or just have questions, please feel free to ask me after the round (just don't be too aggressive). I'd rather have a discussion than have you walking away feeling unsatisfied.
Also please weigh. Please. Feel free to ask me any other questions!
Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.
Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.
If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.
*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.
1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.
2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.
3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.
4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.
5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.
6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.
7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.
8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).
I debated in high school and college some years ago. I am a lay judge. I have judged PF over the past 2 years. I encourage speaking clearly and at a pace that is not too fast. I will flow the round. Explain why you believe your side should win and why your arguments are more compelling than the other side’s. Good luck to everyone!
Name: Pallob Poddar
School Affiliation: North South University
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 am most convinced by arguments that present compelling evidence with sources reflecting different perspectives and stakeholders around the resolution. Please be respectful of each other during the debate, and speak slowly enough to be understood. I will expect teams to keep their own time. I am a lay judge, so please feel free to point out any rules of debate that you feel may have been broken during the round.
I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and recently graduated from Pomona. I went to TOC a few times and reached finals my senior year. I graduated in 2017. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org—put me on the email chain! If you have questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.
TLDR; please weigh (a lot), one good argument > four blippy arguments, be nice to your opponent!
Hi PF! I have coached LD in various places. I now coach PF for Oakwood. I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging, though my LD background will inform how I perceive rounds. I prefer to do as little work for debaters as possible. The best debaters will write my ballot for me.
TLDR; I have a high threshold for warrants and extensions. I'll vote on policy style extinction scenarios if done well, but they're often executed poorly—be sure you can tell a clear story with warrants in later speeches.
- Send speech docs before your speeches; if you paraphrase, include all the cards at the bottom of the doc.
- The best final speeches have a clear narrative arc/story of your impact scenario with many kinds of weighing—i.e., don't just say that nuclear war is worse than poverty—you should also have a number of arguments comparing your/your opponent's internal links. Extend warrants into final focus.
- People in PF have started to read LD/policy type arguments with long link chains. Often, these arguments don't have proper uniqueness/link/impact. If you can't tell a clear story establishing a brink for impacts that would require a brink, it will be hard to get me to vote on these arguments against something with a clearer narrative. I also tend to find these arguments unpersuasive since the strength of link to your terminal impact is always pretty low, and often some of the links are barely warranted. You can execute this well, but be cautious that the links are well-articulated.
- I have a lot of trouble with signposting in PF. Be extra clear about where you are on the flow at all times. I tend to miss card names, so don't use those to signpost. If you're spreading, slow down more.
- Be as explicit as possible with things like weighing.
- I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted. I believe I have a somewhat high threshold for what counts as a warrant—one sentence cards usually aren't enough.
- I'm relatively technical, but I am less inclined to vote for you're not persuasive
- I do not understand how the economy works..... if you're using technical economic terms please explain what they mean! And be extra-extra explicit about how you reach your impacts. Examples help.
Evidence exchange takes much too long. If the round takes over an 1 hr 10 min due to evidence exchange, speaks are capped at a 27.5. If one team sends their evidence before every speech, this only applies to the other team. If one team seems to excessively ask for evidence, this rule will only affect the speaks of the other team.
- I can flow spreading, but I'd rather not and I'll probably miss things—especially if you don't send speech docs/make 1-2 line arguments. Use spreading as an opportunity to make more in-depth arguments, rather than spewing blips
- I will not intervene unless I believe you are engaging in a practice that excludes your opponent—for example, reading theory against novices/a team that clearly doesn't know what theory is, particularly if the arguments are frivolous. Use your judgment & debate with the best intentions.
- I will vote on kritiks that are executed correctly, but please make an effort to ensure your opponent understands your positions and err towards over-explanation. Kritiks should be disclosed
- If both teams seem to want to have a theory/k/etc. debate, then I will evaluate this argument as if it is an LD round. If you miss necessary argument components, that's on you—e.g., I won't pretend you read a theory voter if you did not
- Good, true arguments > highly technical bad arguments
- If you read disclosure theory and don't disclose your disclosure theory shell, you should lose, though your opponent must point this out.
- I have a low threshold for ev ethics violations. If you think your opponent did something bad, they probably did. Feel free to stop the round, or make a brief argument explaining the violation, and I'll vote on it if I think the violation is clear. You can read a full theory shell if you want to, but it's not necessary
- Things that are bad: clipping, miscutting, misattributing evidence, broken links, changing the meaning of the cards with brackets, lying, not reading things that change the meaning of the evidence, etc.
I’ll vote on anything as long as it is warranted. Although I debated a certain way, I would much rather see you do what you do best than to try to adapt to what you think I want. I’ll try to evaluate the round in the way I think the debaters see it, so I’ll do my best to avoid defaulting either way on any particular issue. My biggest preference is just for intelligent well-thought out arguments, whether that's a kritik, a plan aff or a framework. That said, here are my preferences:
- Please please please do not be late :(
- Full disclosure: if you send me your Aff, I'm probably just gonna back flow it later and zone out during the AC . So if you're extemping things in the aff (idrk why people do this...if ur opponent will have a hard time flowing, I will too) give me a heads up
- The biggest reason people lose in front of me is because they do not explicitly weigh. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, PLEASE, OR ELSE I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE. And then we will all be sad. If you do not weigh in your speech, and then you lose, that is on you.
- Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves your computer or when you email your opponent
- I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
- I reserve the right to not vote for arguments that I don’t understand/that are not warranted. Your opponent shouldn’t lose for dropping an incoherent sentence with no justification
- I won’t vote for any responses to arguments that are new in later speeches, even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
- I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
- I’ll time your speech — if you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
- I think embedded clash is good — you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them, but that’s my default
- It's really hard to flow spreading on Zoom. I'll yell clear, but if I have to say it more than a couple of times I am missing arguments you've made and I won't fill in the blanks
- If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them
- I strongly dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them if there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded. Just know your speaks will suffer.
- Slow down for interps/counterinterps
- If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it
- I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy fw preclusion arguments
- Please weigh
- I think people think I don't like Ks?? This is not true. Kritiks, run well, are one of my favorite kinds of arguments. I'm pretty familiar with most K lit, with the exception of POMO stuff, so please go slower if you’re reading something super dense. If I have no idea what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you. Concrete examples are always good.
- My defaults for kritiks are the same as other positions, which is: please weigh, and please be explicit with interactions. Don't expect me to know what arguments your position takes out without an explicit implication. (I.e. you have to say, this takes out theory, and why).
Things that will get you high speaks
- Innovative and interesting arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
- Good strategies
- Using CX effectively
- High argument quality
- Good overviews/crystallization
- Good case debate. Please don't drop the aff!!!!
Things that will get you low speaks:
- not disclosing
- being shifty
- lots of spikes/blippy arguments
- super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
- clearly not understanding your own positions
- being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude and go slower so that the round is educational for everyone
- academic dishonesty
About Me: I am a parent judge with my first experience starting in 2019. Since then I have judged 30 rounds as of end of 2020. I have primarily judged Public Forum for high school students but have also a few rounds of Parliamentary debate for middle school.
Why Debate Matters To Me: As Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "“the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” To me, debate is one of the best real life arenas where this gets tested. I believe in debate as a forum for highlighting the strength of narrative, expression and persuasion that is based on a foundation of research and thoughtful insights and sharpened by intellect. I see it as a dynamic mix of strategy and tactics that is an essential life skill in any professional or social setting.
Procedural Preferences: A limited list of things that I like to emphasize to help debaters present their case, and for me to do justice in understanding your arguments:
(i) Please minimize spreading - this is not a speed-reading contest. If I as a judge cannot clearly follow your argument, I will have limited basis to judge you on the merits of your contentions and overall case
(ii) Signposting is important - both while setting up your contentions and when rebutting your opponent's contentions, evidence or impact. It helps me establish your case and cross-reference it to the rebuttals
(iii) Identify yourself - at the start. I will ask for this explicitly to ensure that I get your names and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points
(iv) Time yourself - I will not be validating or judging you by how many seconds under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized. I am less impressed when you wrap up 20-30 seconds before your allotted time.
(iv) Be polite - to your opponents. We are not at war. Similarly, the judge is not here to put you down - relax!
Evaluation Criteria: My evaluation criteria goes with the flow. What that means is that, as you progress through the flow, I expect you to build on your contentions, cite the impact of your evidences, de-emphasize your opponents' arguments and rebuttals, and finally summarize the progression in the Final Focus.
With that context here are a few guidelines of my evaluation -
1. Case building will be evaluated on the depth of your research that truly emphasize your contention(s). Great contentions with weakly supported evidences and impact will not get you high points - but, and this is important, I will not unilaterally evaluate the merit of your contention, if your opponent team does not clearly highlight the weaknesses
2. Evidence is important, but your support of that evidence to reinforce your contention and weightage is far more important. Simply citing a source as the truth is not enough, it has to be proven by facts and supported by analysis. Just because a publication or a source says something, does not make it true
3. Cover all of your opponents contentions and evidences in your rebuttals. Leaving a point un-responded, essentially means that you have not been able to find a good contrary argument and evidence and hence strengthens the opposing team's argument
4. Weightage is important, but not just by stating it. It has to be accompanied by reasons why your weighting framework is better than your opponents'
5. Speaker points are provided on 3 specific criteria - presentation, quality of argumentation, and strategic choices. The strategic choices are your extemporaneous evaluation of your opponent's case and how you choose to re-position your case and work through your research to analytically de-emphasize your opponent's key contentions, evidences and impact
That's it. Good Luck to one and all!
Hi! My name is Rini Ratan, and I'm a parent judge from New York! Both of my children are public forum debaters-- my daughter is the captain of her school's debate team and my younger son is in his first year debating.
I'm looking forward to learning a lot during each debate. Thank you and good luck!
BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech
if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!
Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.
Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.
Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.
Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.
Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!
I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)
I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well
The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team
- theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
- Provide impact calc throughout the round
- I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
- CLASH IS KEY
Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.
- Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.
2nd rebuttal should rebuild!
- extending over ink makes me very sad :(
Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points
Please please please weigh your arguments.
Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.
please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time
Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is email@example.com
I am a parent judge with some experience. I will take a lot of notes, but I do not “flow”. Please be respectful of each other during the debate. Please speak slowly enough to be understood. You have done your research and worked hard on your case, but I can only give you credit if I can understand what you are saying. Fast arguments challenge my ability to follow you. I will expect teams to keep their own time. I would recommend quality arguments over quantity.
I hope you have fun. Good luck and have a great round.
Don't spread, make sure to make your arguments clear.
All responses to constructive must be in rebuttal. If an argument is not extended through FF & Summary, then it won't count. Make sure to frontline your defense against the opponents through all speeches as well.
firstname.lastname@example.org -- add to the email chain
I am a parent judge with 3 years of experience judging in PF. A few notes about my preferences:
- Please try to speak slowly, if I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to evaluate it in my decision
- Act civil during crossfire, I will drop your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents
- Don't run arguments that use lots of complex technical argumentation and jargon (K's, theory, etc.)
- I evaluate the flow to judge the round, but please give me a clear narrative, I enjoy voting for arguments that are cohesive and well-warranted
- Don't misconstrue your evidence and make sure that if you paraphrase, it accurately represents your evidence
- Give me clear link extensions and weighing in the final focus, and don't bring up new offense after first summary
- Time yourselves please
- Make sure to address all responses from first rebuttal in your second rebuttal, otherwise I will consider the responses dropped
- If you send me your disclosed case I will give you +1 speaker points. email@example.com
I'm Bhawna Saxena and I'm a parent judge! I have a daughter in Public Forum and I'm familiar with the general format, but it's my first time judging.
The most important thing to me is no rude or offensive language. It will not be tolerated. Please be polite during crossfire. I encourage civility and civil debate.
I appreciate signposting and well paced case reading. Absolutely no spreading or talking very fast. Off time roadmaps are highly encouraged, as they help me stay organized and help me to understand the coming speech better. I will be taking notes to help me stay organized as well.
Technical language is not helpful to me, and doesn't help me understand your argument. Please refrain from using it.
Make sure to tell me why you think you won. Explain to me the reasons and make sure you compare arguments and their impacts.
I think debate is an enriching activity and there's lots to learn. Make sure you have fun!
I am a parent in my first year of judging PF. I value clear arguments and careful use of evidence. I've taught writing and I've taught about teaching at various colleges and universities so I have high expectations and look forward to seeing what you can do.
Hi, I;have judged few tournaments and have been watching my son debate for a while because of which I have a very good understanding of how PF debate works. I have a background is business with a MBA degree and have several speaking engagements as part of my day job
Don't spread but you don't have to go painfully slow either. My son speaks really fast, so I've gotten used to a little speed in everyday conversation. Clearly explain the argument. If it's not in FF, I'm not voting on it. No new analysis in second FF. Other than that, pretty tabula rasa, will try my best not to intervene.
Speaks: Making your point in calm and composed way that clearly communicates your point will get you higher points
Background: Software executive that has both a tech and business background. Do not read random economic arguments that aren't true/don't make sense (for ex. don't read that the US dollar is gonna collapse, that's basically never going to happen)
Feel free to ask me any questions before the round that I may have missed. Have fun!
I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.
I am a lay judge, but have been taught to flow and have two years of experience judging PF. I prefer clear, slower speaking. Signposts are also super helpful. I don't intervene; I will judge your contentions by your ability to extend them and your opponents' ability (or lack thereof) to undermine them. I look for a logical argument. I like summaries and final focuses that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I never called a card when judging in person, but now that competitions are virtual, I do look at the cards that are called, and I have occasionally called a card myself. Speaking with passion is cool; aggressiveness is not. I do not like debates run on theory.
For evidence, start an email chain or a shared google doc at the beginning of the round. It is for your benefit to not share cards through the chat. Include me on the chain - I'll give my email in the chat during the round.
WEIGH. WEIGH. WEIGH. Otherwise I will be forced to do link/impact comparison for you, and you may not like how I do it.
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.
Add me to the email chain & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: firstname.lastname@example.org
General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.
Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like.
Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.
- keep track of your own times pls
- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves
- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.
- Frontline if you're second rebuttal
- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.
- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)
- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.
- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)
- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)
warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)
weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh but make it comparative
in summary and final focus
pls thank u
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. email chain! email@example.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.
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!
I've had a year of policy debate long ago in high school, so I'm okay with people speaking quickly as long as it's clear. Please extend your impact throughout the round. Back up all your arguments and have clear warranting. Have accurate and valuable evidence. I appreciate off time roadmaps and I default to most lives saved or affected. Please be mindful of time. Anything you say after the timer sounds will be disregarded. When sharing evidence, please include me. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org. Be respectful to each other and make sure to weigh your rounds. Good luck!
I am the coach of Scarsdale HS and have been in the activity for 20 some odd years
As a member of the LD Wording Committee, I prefer to hear arguments that are actually about the topics. I will listen to any well reasoned and explained arguments though although voting on argument not about the topic will probably make me want to give poor points.
Don’t steal time. Once the timer starts at the beginning of the round, it doesn’t stop. Whatever electronic shuffling you want to do, water that you want to drink, happens on your time.
No, I don’t want to be on the speech doc. I want to flow and think. Therefore, if you want it on my flow, you have to speak at a speed and clarity that allows that to happen. I would say that about half what you believe to be your fastest speed is probably appropriate.
i would prefer fewer cards and stats that are actually contextualized and explained than a slurry of paraphrased nonsense. Anyone can make individualized stats dance, but a solid debater can explain the context of that work and how it links to other pieces of info
1. I am a parent judge, so please explain things clearly and speak slowly. Please avoid using jargon without explaining it first.
2. Please be nice
3. Don't be offensive or use inappropriate language
4. Please signpost and be clear
Helloi debaters. To let you know, I am a first time judge and have never judged HS PF before. Therefore, I would like to ask for you to speak at a regular pace. The faster you speak, the less of a chance I write your arguments on the flow. Anything I dont hear, I will not count to the round, and I will not let it be extended.
Here are a few preferences of mine:
1) Please signpost. This will make it much easier for me to understand the round, and will have a beneficial impact on your speaker points
2) Dont be mean or abusive in crossfire and be courteous when talking one another. Your points will be affected by your behaviour, and I could possibly drop you because of this behaviour.
3) Tech>truth I will be as fair and impartial as I can and evaluate the warranting instead of the merit of the argument.
4) I value warranting over a bunch of cards. Please explain why your argument is true and dont just tell me that so and so said it. Your link chain is important
5) I prefer you to collpase on 1 argument. When you collapse, it allows me to understand why you're winning more clearly.
6) Please weigh your impacts with warranting. I dont just want to hear "We outweigh on probability" without telling me why. Please be comparative in your weighing
7) For case, I would prefer two contentions or less
To start off, I would like to inform everyone that this is the second time I have judged HS PF, but I have judged a few round in MS.
There are a few things that I would like to make clear when you are debating
1. This is probably the most important thing to note on this paradigm: Please speak as clearly and slowly as possible. Anything I don't hear, I will not count to the round. If you spread, I will probably not understand anything.
2. To help me understand better, please signpost. (It will also let you get higher speaker points)
3. I am tech over truth. I will be as impartial and as fair to this topic as possible, even though i have biases. If an argument is untrue, but you still warrant it well and it is extended, I will count it to the round.
4. Speaking about warranting, if you want to win the round, I don't want you to dump evidence everywhere. Explaining and warranting is more important. When comparing arguments, I will evaluate on who has the better warrant first and then the evidence second
I will evaluate the round on 3 main criteria:
1. The most important thing is how well I understand your arguments and warranting. I probably don't know a lot of terms when it comes to this topic, so please explain everything. The more I understand and the more you explain, the better your chances are. Additionally, I also evaluate if these arguments are extended through the whole round
2. I secondly evaluate by the way you respond to your opponents arguments. Please address everything so you have the best chances at winning.
3. please weigh and don't just say you outweigh. Once again explain the weighing. Being comparative and quantifiable are probably the most important parts of weighing.
Some additional things:
1. Don't be rude or else you get low speaks and ill probably drop you
2. I like when people are intelligent and well spoken
3. Again to reiterate, please speak at a normal understanding pace. PF was supposed to be a debate where normal people off the street can understand it, so try to meet that goal as best as possible.
I did PF for four years at Evanston Township HS, and I'm currently a senior at Columbia.
I'll flow, I can handle speed, and I'll listen to anything as long as it's not offensive/violent -- I won't vote for your argument if it's either of these things.
I'm most likely to vote for you if 1) your argument was extended in its entirety (warrant and impact) through summary and final focus, and 2) you weigh. The best weighing is comparative, so just repeating an impact from case, even if you're doing a great job explaining why that impact matters, isn't enough if it doesn't engage the other half of the debate.
Have fun & make jokes if you're funny :)
Be Polite and respectful.
Do your homework, be prepared to send the evidence to support your statement.
Don't speak too fast.
Bullet points are helpful.
Don't use much debate jargon.
Have fun and good luck.
I’m a parent judge and don’t have a lot of experience judging.
For the november/december topic, I would say that I have enough knowledge on the topic to understand most arguments.
Please do not run any squirrely arguments.
I am more of a truth>tech judge rather than a tech>truth judge.
I vote off of what makes the most sense to me. If you want to win my ballot, then you need to explain your argument thoroughly. I would rather you spend all of your speeches explaining your argument rather than spend the whole time talking about your opponents case.
Weighing is important but Case is the most important thing in the round.
Please do not speak fast, a 600 - 700 word case would be preferable.
I do speaks off of how well I can understand you.
I am a parent judge. Judged since 2016.
I value logic and coherence. Apply empirical evidence in your arguments.
I prefer a small number of clear, well-articulated arguments over a list of arguments covering every aspect.
Don't speed, you may lose me.
Be nice in the crossfire.
---------------Most Recent Update: 3/28/2022 -------------
I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino High School, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently debate APDA for Columbia. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches. I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (email@example.com). Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of the Small Schools K.
- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk
- weigh lots, be clever
- no friv T, don't like tricks
- T debates are a bit dull so please do your best to be original
- *not* a K hack despite my background, mostly because I think they tend not to be run very well. if you do it well please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win
- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!
These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation.
My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.
- Pleaaaaaase weigh. The team that does the best weighing will probably win the ballot. If you don't weigh the argument I'm not voting on it.
- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe
- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument
- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli
- Signpost: if I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it
- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness
- Not going to flow blippy, time-sink shells, no brightline needed
- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI
- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))
- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous
- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it
- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.
- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying
- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)
- If anyone manages to read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.
- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you unless they completely mishandle it
- No alt = no UQ = not going to vote on it unless it's about harmful rhetoric
- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. Don't read identity Ks unless you identify with the identity. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side
Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round)
Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Otherwise, refer below. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round, don't care how you say it as long as you say it. Bonus points listed above in appropriate sections.
30: I will eat my hat if you don't win this tournament also you made me learn something profound
29.5: Pretty much perfect round with smart strategic choices
29: Could tell you knew your arguments well and made good choices
28.5: Solid arguments, solid weighing
27: Arguments need more articulation or did not come across clearly
26: Needs improvement on creating arguments, see ballot for specifics
25: you were a jerk, refer to the ballot to see how and why
- default to beat-the-team on tight calls
- for speaks take my scale above and basically bump it up by 1, but if you're problematic you're getting a 20
- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)
- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed
- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules
- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)
- I don't flow cross
- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)
- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant
- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki
- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary
- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary
- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie)
- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)
- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone
- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. I also will not flow new arguments, but if it's iffy I'll give you the benefit of the doubt unless it gets called.
- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking
- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument
Westlake 21, Wharton 25
Debated for five years. I like warrants and implications a lot.
(*Quick note for Jan 2022: This topic can be very sensitive for many people. Be aware of the language you are using. Additionally, if you are running a potentially triggering topic, run a trigger warning.)
A couple tips:
- I will vote for the easiest path to the ballot. Do extend and do weigh. If you don't, don't expect to get >27.5 speaks.
- TIME YOURSELF. No one does and it is annoying.
- Can and will evaluate prog. Don't suck at it b/c I will dock your speaks even if you win. I am better at evaluating theory and Ks but if you're gonna run anything else be very clear about how it functions in the round.
- Don't call for too many cards to get free prep. It's very apparent when you do so. Docking speaks a lot if it takes a long time to pull up evidence.
- If you disclose, lmk and I'll add 0.5 speaks.
- If you want detailed feedback at the end of round, lmk before the round starts.
You can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or FB message me.
I debated PF all through high school, coached all through college, and am now coaching at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. My role in the round is to interpret the world you aim to create, and to that end you should tell me explicitly what it is you are trying to do. I stick to the flow as well as I can.
common question answers:
1. Anything that needs to be on the ballot, needs to be in Final Focus, and anything in final needs to be in summary.
2. The first speaking team should be predicting the offense in first summary that needs to be responded to, and putting defense on it then. This ALSO means that the second speaking team has to frontline in the rebuttal. Any arguments/defense that are not in the First Summary are dropped, and any arguments that are not frontlined in the second rebuttal are dropped.
3. Summary to Final Focus consistency is key, especially in terms of the relevance of arguments, if something is going to be a huge deal, it should be so in both speeches. You're better off using your new 3 minute summary to make your link and impact extensions cleaner than you are packing it full of args.
4. I will call for cards that I think are important, and I will throw them out if they are bad or misrepresented, regardless of if they are challenged in the round. sometimes when two arguments are clashing with little to no analysis, this is the only way to settle it.
As a note, I am pretty hard on evidence, especially as sharing docs is becoming more popular. If you are making an argument, and the evidence is explicitly making a different argument, I won't be able to flow your arg.
Speed is fine, but spreading isn't. I'll evaluate critical arguments if they have a solid link, but they have to link to the topic y'all, so they basically have to be a critical disad.
I evaluate theory if it's needed, but I'm really skeptical of how often that is.
Feel free to ask for anything else you need to know.
You should pre-flow before the start time of the round, that will help your speaks!
Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.
As a parent judge, I have far more admiration for, than expertise in, your craft.
I flow but am happy to be carried away by the grace of a thoughtful argument.
In my paradigm:
- clarity trumps speed;
- intelligence trumps arrogance; and
- realistic complexity trumps reductionism.
I believe that the notional precision of speaker scores, particularly at the Varsity level, is overwhelmed by the subjectivity of human judges and the lottery that is Tab.
To state the obvious in this impossible season: on-line debate is a pale, impoverished cousin of the Real Thing, as is true of so much in this pandemic. But your dedication, preparation, and passion can still shine through--just don't let the bandwidth get you down.
My sincere congratulations for participating in Yale's flagship event, and condolences if you draw me as a judge.
If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me. For online virtual debates, I would like you to disclose your case to me before the round actually starts and add me to the email chains.
I am parent judge and has judged so far 7 tournaments.
Speak clearly, no spreading please
Like well thought out arguments which are logical and make sense.
I am a parent judge from Acton Boxborough Regional High School. I have judged Pubic Forum debate for three years.
I am not a native speaker so please do not spread and try to be as clear as possible. I also prefer arguments that are based on numbers and facts. And do not stretch too much when you talk about impact, you may need to be a bit more convincing if you are going to talk about something against common sense.
Hi, I am a parent judge, and it will help a lot if you speak slowly and clearly and tell me how to weigh your impacts. TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT THE VOTING ISSUES ARE. keep your own time. roadmap. final focus is the most important for me: have everything you want considered in ff, and SPEAK SLOWLY.
for states: will know a little bit about the resolution, but still explain ALL jargon.
from her daughter: hi guys, my mom is not a native english speaker, so i cannot place enough emphasis on how important it is to speak incredibly slowly and be clear. if you do that, she should understand everything. it would honestly help if you cut down on one contention but explain the remaining contention(s) incredibly well. collapse asnearly as possible, and explaimnvotimg issues as clearly as possible. gl :))
Edina '21 - Duke '25
I debated for Edina MZ in Minnesota and qualified to TOC all 4 years of high school.
put me on the email chain if there is one: (email above)
for Columbia!: please start the round on time <3
tl:dr - tech > truth judge - tabula rasa. I'll flow the entire round, debate how you want - line by line/big picture idc - time yourselves - Everything in FF should be in summary.
- have fun! crack jokes - itll make the whole debate more fun and enjoyable
- sit, stand, wear casual clothes, wear formal clothes, I'm good with whatever makes y'all most comfortable
- i'll disclose at the end of the round if y'all want
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. be smart
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 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 (like shoe theory). read paraphrase theory at your own risk (make sure there's an actual violation with their ev, don't run it just to run it). paragraph theory is fine if you don't know how to write the full shell.
Ks: run at your own risk, but explain it well. I'll listen to the arg and know how they work but prolly won't know the lit base that well.
tricks: no. just don't
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.
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, plz be able to give them the card promptly or just send out speech docs. if you are paraphrasing and i call for evidence at the end of the round, plz give me the card and the paraphrase you read!
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.
bad evidence: some evidence has gotten really bad, so i'll reserve the right to drop args or you entirely based on evidence violations - please don't let it come to this tho :)
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.
- if you have any more questions, anything in this paradigm applies to me too
Hi. My name is Wenhan Zhu. I have been judging debates for more than two years. I enjoy hearing debaters speak passionately about their chose topics. When debating I prefer if a debater allows the other side to finish speaking before they speak. This is especially true during crossfires.