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

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

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

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

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

Please speak at a reasonable pace.

If you choose to collapse, I will not consider the dropped argument.

Try to abstract the round into its fundamentals. Don't argue over numbers, argue over ideas.

Weighing is not a necessity, but you will be at a significant disadvantage if the other team weighs and you do not. Thus, I strongly encourage you weigh. By weighing, I mean that you should give a comparative look at the round as it has transpired and explain why your side has won.

If the debate becomes centered around a card or multiple cards, I will call for the card at the end of the round, if it has not been called for already. If the card fails to align with the claims of the team that raised it, the points will be dropped from consideration.

Generally, I will vote for the most persuasive team. Very rarely will my ballot be decided off of technical details.

Happy debating!

Hi, I am a parent judge and will be judging PF. Thanks!

Hello-I am still a new parent Judge, but have judged a previous tournament, and look forward to this competition.

1)Dont speed talk so fast that the arguments are not discernable; If I dont hear it, I cant judge it
2)The quality of your arguments weighs more than the quantity, make sure the arguments are concise
3) I prefer that you stick to the topic
4) Dont avoid an argument, as this is debate
5) Be respectfull and have fun

Hi,

I am a judge who enjoys a good debate based on logical reasoning supported by evidence. Here are a couple things I like/do not like as a judge:

- I do not like spreading, and will only vote on a contention if it is carried throughout the entire round.

- Please be respectful, and do not yell, passion can be expressed in other ways.

With that said, I am looking forward to listening to your arguments. Good luck!!

I am  from TN and am looking forward to judging debate. Please make sure to speak on the slower side and clearly so that I can understand your arguments. Make sure to speak loudly and make eye contact as it helps me understand you better as well. Please be polite .

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most importantly:

HAVE FUN AND LEARN EACH TIME.

· Focus on making a sound, well structured argument – 2 or 3 strong points will go much farther than 5 or 6 weaker arguments

· Avoid acronyms and jargon that are not widely known – if you must use them, clearly define them

· Do not speak over one another – respect your opponents time – this is particularly important during online tournaments

· Speak clearly and at a regular, speaking pace

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

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

2. Overall, be kind and have fun

Good luck, and may the best team win!

Please don't say anything you know to be objectively and/or blatantly false. The more convincing side wins.

Kendelle Durkson

Judging PF: 8 years

Competing in PF: 4 years

Current Occupation: Graduate Student (M.D.)

My advice to debaters is to take your time delivering nuanced and developed arguments instead of speaking at a superhuman speed to cover all of the contentions. I prefer big-picture arguments that are anchored in current data while also supported by an appreciation of the historical account/data. Specifically, highlight the historical trends + current consequences in your arguments and the data that supports said conclusions.

The role of the final focus is to recap the main arguments presented and reinforce why your evidence is the most relevant in comparison to your opponent's contentions. I prefer if debaters focus on the overall logic/fact sequence of the debate and how their own contentions are factually supported. Not spending too much time nitpicking a particular data point or opponents' card (unless particularly topical to the overall debate).

As for extensions of arguments into later speeches, I support the practice if the argument prevails due to superior evidence and presentation of that evidence. It is wise for debaters to not overload at the beginning of speeches because you can use later speeches to refine the initial contentions provided. As for topicality, the arguments definitely should be on focus and directly addressing the resolution. Additionally, I do not look favorably upon contentions that rely on hypothetical proposals to address/remedy/provide an alternative to the resolution.

Lastly, as for kritiks, I urge debaters to be cautious with overpopulating their contentions with perspectives from Critical Theory. Although I recognize the importance of systemic critique (and even encourage your arguments to be framed with systemic inequalities in mind), I do not want the arguments to become nontopical and overly lofty. As for flowing, I will hand flow all of the arguments and then follow through the debate with several bullet points of significant subpoints/counterarguments/etc.

As a judge, I prefer the argument over style. Granted, I insist that debaters respect each other while speaking, the rules, and the forum while presenting or cross-examining. However, the evidence and logical conclusions drawn in the arguments are what are most persuasive to me. I will not dash points for speaking slowly or any speech impediments-- I will dash points for incessantly interrupting opponents, being rude, or not participating.

In my opinion, if a team plans to win a debate on an argument, then that argument has to be extended in the summary speeches. I prefer if teams use the cross-examination/rebuttal to highlight fallacies and inaccuracies in the opposing team's arguments while using the summary to reinforce the evidence + logic of the supposed winning argument.

If a team is second speaking, I do not require that the team cover the opponents' case or answer to its opponents' rebuttal in the rebuttal speech. I think debaters should have flexibility in how they want to frame their speeches. However, I urge debaters to know I will remember significant arguments presented by the opposing team. So if something needs to be critically addressed or answered in either the summaries or rebuttals, I urge that team to use the time to adequately address the issues.

I vote for arguments that are raised during the grand crossfire because I believe each team should have adequate time to decide if they want to address those arguments. New arguments raised during the final focus is given much less weight because they are not addressed with as much scrutiny.

I am a Parent Judge. I have judged a PF Debate before but still please talk a bit slow. Please keep a check on the time and login 10 min before your assigned Round. If you need Prep time please let me know.

UPDATED January 2024:

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

Generally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To give into the debate lingo, I am a "truth over tech" judge. Use statistics and sources to back up your arguments, not to make the arguments themselves. In other words, explain your logic and then use stats to back that logic up. Your overall narrative is very important, and your fundamental logic is also important (i.e. don't tell me bees will cause nuclear war). This doesn't excuse the a team from their burden of disproving their opponents arguments, though. If your opponent says bees will cause nuclear war, make sure to point out that's absurd. "Cut out the fat," in the argument and get to the crux of what they're saying, this usually makes ridiculous arguments very clear.

Spreading: don't spread. Public Forum was designed to be informative to the average person...the average person would not understand anything if you're spreading.

Weighing: weighing is huge. There are almost always valid arguments on both sides, disproving each and every single one to a definitive degree is almost always impossible in a round. Given this, weighing is super important. Go about disproving everything you want to disprove but then weigh the arguments.

Hi, I am both a debater and a judge. Here are some preferences and things you should avoid when debating.

Preferences:

I like debaters to give clear roadmaps of their speeches and have easy to follow line-by-line

Speak clearly so I can flow all of your important arguments

If you have a specific response, be clear about what it is (Non-uniqueness, turns, etc)

Dislikes:

Do not spread, you may speak quickly if needed but I prefer you to speak at a normal pace

Please do not use unconventional types of arguments in public forum, I think they hurt fairness (Ks!, CPs)

Don't avoid arguments, clash is the most fun part of debate

I am a parent judge with no previous debate experience. I will be weighing points against points.

I do enjoy jokes during the debate, the goal is to have fun. I will not tolerate any misbehavior; everyone must be kind and polite to everyone else.

Mike Girouard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debated at JMU for three years (novice, JV, some varsity tournaments). I’ve judged college policy debate and all styles of high school debate. I'm currently a graduate student studying International Affairs.

Etiquette – I will time the round, but please time yourself if you can. I've noticed a trend of competitors signaling their opponents when they run over time - as a judge, I will stop flowing and/or let a debater if they are over time. Be respectful and kind to other people in the round/room and focus on your own debating!

Ideas about debate:

1. I’ll watch and flow whatever debate happens. I consider myself fairly open-minded in terms of debate, and don’t care what I judge. I'm not actively coaching, so I may not be fully familiar with all of the acronyms for a new topic area (especially in high school LD/PF), explain key terms!

2. Good evidence analysis/argument comparison allows for good debate to happen. Create an interesting, in-depth debate by using the arguments and evidence already in the debate before reading more cards!

3. Run the arguments that you are comfortable with. I won’t walk into a round with my mind set to vote against anything. If you explain how you relate to/interact with the topic, or how you want me to view the round, we should all be happy!

Specific Arguments:

1. Theory/FW – Run what you are comfortable with, but make sure that all of your arguments are well-warranted and impacted in the round. Proven abuse wins over blippy analytics. The bar is a little higher to win an argument like ASPEC with a well written plan text, but create any neg strat you like.

2. Kritiks – I ran Ks, but that doesn’t mean I’m familiar with every single philosopher’s base of work. Flesh out the details if they’re important.

3. DA/CP – Great strat to go for, make sure your story is complete with full links, internal links, and impacts.

If you still have any questions, feel free to ask! Have fun!

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

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

Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

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

brixztheflip@gmail.com

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

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

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

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

Make Art Not War

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

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

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

Hello everyone! I am a parent judge, but I take complete a detailed flows during rounds. I expect a clear argument with extended evidence and links. Make sure to paint a strong narrative, and use effective weighing strategies to prove why you should win a round. Thanks!

Be Polite towards the other team

Focus on Quality over quantity - don't rush and try to squeeze in more points in the allotted time

Speak Clearly and Be Effective

Enjoy the experience!

Things that I would appreciate having in the tournament.

1. I would expect well structured cases from both sides.

2. Being persuasive(having a good presentation) is very important for me.

3. Both sides need to provide me both logic and evidence in their arguments.

4. Do as much weighing and comparing as you guys can, however simply telling me that you have more evidence than the other side does not count as weighing.

5. Speaking at 200 wpm is acceptable for me so don’t be afraid to speak fast

Things that are irritating for me when I judge a tournament:

1. During rebuttals please do not attack your opponents personally

2. I will not buy a point if that sides just provided me with a bunch of evidence or “data-vomit”. You have to tell me why those numbers matter!

3. I will not buy a point if that side just gave me logic links. Show me why it would work as you said.

4. Clarity matters more than speed for me.

5. Don't provide fake evidence, it's a matter of principle.

6. Don’t yell during crossfire. Remember that I’m not going to decide which side won based solely on a crossfire.

Anyway, good luck during the tournament and enjoy the experience! Learn from your mistakes and don’t be afraid to ask me questions after the debate!

Experience: 13 years in multiple formats, first for Torrey Pines HS, then for Cal Poly SLO. I have a master's degree in urban planning from USC, and I currently work as a transportation planner for a small city near Los Angeles.

I can't handle top speed, but moderate speed should be okay. If it's too fast, I'll let you know.

I approach debate as an educator - if your arguments are based on extensive familiarity with the topic and context, and if you use that knowledge to engage substantively with your opponents' arguments, I will likely vote for you. I prefer arguments which are grounded in literature (not necessarily academic) to those which are not. I also appreciate specific warranting - appeals to authority are next to useless without an articulated warrant.

My speaker points will reward deep knowledge of the topic - cross-examination is your time to shine.

Be respectful of your judges and fellow competitors. This includes respecting everyone's time: make sure all of your evidence is easily accessible if called, quickly open lines of communication to your partner during prep time, and make sure your technology is in working order prior to the start of the round.

Speak clearly and slowly.

Back your statements with evidence.

Be logical in your arguments.

Be nice, kind and fair to your opponents. Try to learn from each round and have fun!

I am a parent judge. I have judged Debate for several years, and I am familiar with the structure and purpose of the sessions. I would like you to time yourselves. Please do not speak too quickly so I understand everything you are saying. Also, please weigh clearly at the end of the round, sign post throughout, and explain distinct impacts in your final focus.

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

Judging Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

5. Don't be rude.

I've been a debate judge voluntarily since middle school; I'm familiar with public forum but would like to be considered a lay judge as I judge infrequently. Spreading is allowed but not preferred as it may prevent me from being able to give you proper speaker points and understanding your argument in a holistic manner.

I am a flow parent/lay judge who prefers clarity over speed.

Please avoid spreading so that I do not miss an argument or response.

I appreciate respectful disagreement and appreciate when you are being directly comparative with your opponent's arguments to demonstrate how you are winning the round.

Keep the impacts realistic. It will be easier to vote for you if the case seems both practical and plausible.

I expect the debaters to present evidence in their arguments and will only look at it if there is a conflict.

I am not particularly supportive of theory arguments and would prefer you stick to the topic at hand.

Although an experienced PF judge, I am also an LD judge.

I’m a parent judge.

Some things to consider during the round:

1. Please don’t spread. I won’t know what you're saying and if I can’t understand you, I can’t vote for you.

2. Ask useful questions during crossfire, I think the ability to respond on the fly is important. However, I won’t consider anything said during crossfire unless it is said during a subsequent speech.

3. Please don’t introduce new arguments during final focus. It is especially not fair for the 1st speaking team if they don't have a chance to response.

4. Read an arguments backed with warrants and cards from credible resources and authors, and tell me why you prefer your evidence over your opponents evidence.

5. Collapsing is important. Quality>Quantity. It is much better if you have one really good one that you focus the round on. Make your argument simple yet powerful.

6. Weighing is very important. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s do.

7. If any false, fake, or misconstrued evidence is run on purpose, I WILL drop you. Debate should be educational, and fake evidence hurts the purpose of this activity. If you believe that your opponents have run misconstrued or fake evidence, please call for the card.

8. As I’ve mentioned, I’m a lay judge, so I don’t understand most pf jargons. I think debate is about persuading normal people with a decent education, so try to make it so even “normal” parents can understand and vote for you.

With everything said, debate should be a fun, educational, extracurricular activity. Try to have fun and please be respectful to your opponents. But most of all, have fun!

I debated for four years at Lincoln East HS and graduated in 2021. I'm pretty removed from debate now, so assume I'm unfamiliar with the topic and any recent norms.

General:

Comparative analysis is the single most important part of any round. Whether you're comparing impacts, warrants, or evidence, please give me reasons why I should prefer you over your opponents—it's the only way to resolve a vast majority of rounds without intervening.

Second rebuttal must frontline arguments they may collapse on, first summary must extend defense, and everything in final focus must be in summary.

I can handle up to 250 words per minute. However, I have trouble flowing blippy speeches, so please use speed for additional warranting, not additional arguments.

I will only call for evidence if I'm explicitly told to in a speech. Similarly, I won't flow off speech docs absent any technical issues.

I do not listen to cross. I will probably be reading articles, browsing the internet, or just shutting my brain off.

If you do not make an attempt to frontline, weigh, or extend your arguments, your speaks will be capped at a 28.

Progressive Arguments:

I have some experience debating and running theory. I generally support disclosure and think paraphrasing is a good practice when done ethically. Debates surrounding different methods of disclosure (i.e. open source vs. full text) are perfectly reasonable, and I'm hesitant to evaluate paraphrasing shells without a specific example of a misconstrued card, assuming evidence ethics is one of your standards. That being said, I would much rather listen to a substance debate if at all possible.

I'm willing to listen to Ks, but I'm not too comfortable evaluating them.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

As far as my judging philosophy goes, I do not have particular preferences. I believe that debate is a place for discussion and discovery. Respect and politeness is a very important part of a good debate. Below is a briefing of how I look at each speech/area of the game, for both Public Forum and Policy (shorter for Policy as you should know what you need to do).

Public Forum

Cross-fire – Be polite, be persuasive, and don't beat around the bush. This is not the time for quarrel or to read off new arguments, but it's for answering your opponents' answer directly. I will not flow cross-fire, so if your opponents conceded to an argument or you think you made a great analytic, you need to mention it specifically in your speech so that I can take note of it. Ask good questions! Closed ended ones are always better than open-ended or clarification questions.

First speeches – There is no need to have a Framework, but it will definitely work for you if you utilize it throughout the debate. Often, people read framework just for the sake of reading it, and fail to develop it beyond their first speech. In short, it is a very powerful tool that debaters should definitely consider using and if you're not using it, don't bother reading it in the first place. As far as case goes, any type of arguments work for me – unless it's illogical or very offensive. But I expect that close to half of the arguments you read in the first speech would be extended into the debate, or else reading that one card is just a waste of time if you don't take advantage of it later in the debate.

Second speeches – The most important roles of the second speaker is to attack the opponents' case, defend their own side, and potentially build upon their case by reading add-ons or additional arguments. The order you put these burdens in really depends on how you are taught, but generally it is most effective to put your rebuttals first and case last, with more time spent on your case. Anyhow, I'm not picky about the order, it just have to be strategic in the debate. And again, if you have a framework you should definitely extend it right in the beginning of your speech.

Summary speeches – This is the time when debaters must funnel down the arguments of the debate for the judge. If you do not list out the most important arguments, it becomes time consuming for me to look through the notes and I might miss an argument that you believe you have won on. Don't feel obligated to extend every answer or argument, just explain to me which are the most important arguments and/or clash in the debate. What's even more strategic and effective is to start your impact calculus here, so that there's less work for the Final Focus. A final note is that I shouldn't see any new arguments in terms of contentions (new answers to the opponents are okay). Also, if you shadow extend any cards (meaning you only read it in the first speech not the second speech), I may or may not vote on that card. But if the opponents never addressed that inconsistency, then I will just let it through.

Final Focus – Here is where you want to limit down the debate to that one or two arguments you think you have won on. There are many ways to do this, but no matter what, it should be clear, concise, straightforward, and easy for me to follow. In the end, the more work you do for the judge means the more likely the judge will vote for you. Impact calculus is also very effective here. In short, no new evidence, elaborate your arguments (including your framework if you extended it throughout the debate), persuasion, and a story to sum things up if possible.

Speed – spreading is okay but hopefully you're not doing it in PF. Clarity > speed, always.

Policy Debate

Framework – like Public Forum, framework should be included in your speech unless you have a good reason not to do so. Develop it, use it to your advantage, and extend it across your speeches so that I will take this into consideration when deciding the ballot.

Topicality – if you do not extend it across the your speeches, I will disregard it as an argument, and be sure to include all of the necessary components. Again, this is a tool that can win you a debate.

Theory – must be explained clearly, efficiently, and logically if you're going to mention it.

Kritiks – only run them if you know how to explain them from the inside out. Have a strong link and don't rely on prewritten blocks. You can always tell when a debater doesn't understand a kritik they're running.

DAs – be strategic when running them, especially when paired with a CP

CPs – always have a net benefit to the CP, answer each permutations separately, and be strategic.

Prep – email/flashing is not considered prep, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, then down goes your speaker point.

Include me in your email chain: benson_lin@brown.edu

(work in progress)

Above are more like the logistics of the debate. As far as skill, persuasion, and speaker points go, just do your best and learn from your mistakes because it's not something that can improve in a day, but as you have more and more experience.

Good luck and have fun!

Note: Public Forum debate is a format I am not familiar with at this point; my background is in policy debate so bear that in mind in framing arguments; some concepts may need more explanation than usual.

In general, my paradigm is to be as open-minded as possible; from my perspective, debaters can argue whatever they choose so long as it is well-reasoned and supported by appropriate evidence. It's not for me to rule anything out-of-bounds on my own; that is for the opponent to show, when needed.

I try not to fill in gaps of logic and reasoning not expressly stated by a debater, focusing on what is actually said. Use shortcuts and jargon at your own peril, if you merely label an argument without explaining it, it's quite likely I won't weigh it heavily. (This has resulted in low-point wins in some of my past judging where strong teams have not adequately explained the basis supporting what they believed to be winning arguments.)

It's never a satisfying result for anyone when a debate judge has to pick a winner based on an ambiguous set of arguments that largely talk past each other. Please be explicit about why I should vote for you, both in terms of substance and, if needed, process/theory, particularly late in the round.

Non-verbal reaction to speeches (e.g., head nods or shaking) should be interpreted as related to whether or not I understand your argument; it does not indicate agreement or disagreement on substance. If I am not tracking at all, for example when people are speaking more quickly than I can understand/process, I will put my pen down.

Please feel free to ask any questions about paradigm before a round begins. I want to be as transparent as possible to ensure a fair competition, and it's been a while since I judged so there may be paradigm-related issues I am not addressing here that may materially affect the approach teams want to take in a particular round.

I am a flow judge. when speaking, please speak clearly. Make sure to mention the main arguments in your summary speech first before bringing them to your final focus speech.

Taken from Tommy Barone:

I am a senior at Regis High School who has competed with moderate success (a few bids, a lot of elims) in PF (and infrequently in LD) on the National Circuit.

TLDR: I want a civil, unmuddled, honest, inoffensive, and accessible round with comprehensive weighing, persuasive warranting, and sufficient empirics to bear out the argumentation. Make your best effort to follow through on that wish and you're in good shape (but don't feel compelled to abandon your style in so doing; I will adapt as best I can)!

Basic judging philosophy: I view flow norms of debate as useful and ascribe to them only insofar as they are most paradigmatically conducive to rigorous analysis and thorough argumentative engagement. Debate in whatever fashion you believe best meets those two criteria, but I believe that a warrant-focused debate with lots of good comparative analysis and an overarching narrative does so most effectively (and does not require superfluous speed or overuse of jargon).

Long, non-exhaustive, and entirely unstructured set of preferences:

Warrant warrant warrant. I couldn't care less about your evidence if it's not warranted.

Tell me to call evidence and I will; misconstrue it and you're getting horrible speaks.

Spewing debate jargon isn't a rhetorical technique. If it's misused or excessive it's reductive to the intellectual level of the round and it will guarantee you bad speaks.

Weigh early, often, and in a way that interacts with your opponent's weighing. Saying buzz words like "scope" or "magnitude" isn't really compelling if I don't know how your arguments actually interact.

Collapse on your best offense and build a coherent narrative that adequately frontlines major responses. Beyond being poor strategy that massively dilutes your weighing (I'm not going to think multiple pieces of offense important!), I think it's borderline abusive and torpedoes the overall quality of the round because it creates a super reductive burden on the other side to extend and implicate adequate responses for 2+ arguments.

It's fine to read a lot of responses in rebuttal, but if they're not sufficiently explained/implicated or warrantless, I'm going to have trouble evaluating them even if they make it to the end of the round. In final focus and summary, try to collapse on just a few responses and implicate them well.

I'm truly fine flowing fairly fast PF speech, but I will be very annoyed if you don't enunciate and signpost well in so doing.

If you're going to run a turn, please implicate the overall effect thereof. So many people read a "turn" that actually just recognizes one negative effect of something and concludes that it must therefore be net negative. Effects are almost always multidirectional, so, unless you're implicating why something is net your way, I'm probably going to presume that the net effect is whatever the original offense was, or I'll at least avoid voting on the issue. Regardless, unless the turn is well weighed and impacted, I'm really not inclined to vote for it.

In second rebuttal, ideally frontline everything you're going to go for in the back-half speeches. I think it's problematic to only respond to turns in second rebuttal because that leaves first final focus responding anew, which I think creates an unfavorable time skew. I understand this puts pressure on second rebuttal, but you can deal with that by collapsing early (which I would actually appreciate regardless--it makes the weighing nicer). That being said, I won't regard defense as conceded if not frontlined in second rebuttal, I'll probably just dock speaks (note: turns DO need to be frontlined in second rebuttal).

Both summaries need to have defense, offense, and weighing (definitely with a focus on the latter two).

If you read off of your computer for the entire round from prewritten text, you're getting very low speaks because that isn't what debate is.

If you say something was conceded, it better be conceded. Probably my biggest pet peeve in debate is when people say a very clearly responded-to argument was dropped, and I will definitely drop speaks substantially for doing so.

You will lose the round with awful speaks if you run arguments that are inaccessible or argue in an inaccessible way (theory, Ks, spreading, anything from LD/policy). The only theory I'd even consider evaluating would be in response to a genuinely very abusive in-round strategy (examples include: spreading, second rebuttal disads, absurd response dumping, turn dumping).

I will be so mad if your style of argumentation is about muddling up the round with high volumes of non-responsive information.

I am the weakest possible version of tech over truth. The only time I'll vote on a flagrantly untrue argument is if it's totally conceded. While I think good critical-thinkers should always be able to deal with outrageous arguments, running them wastes a team's time, throws them off, and is rarely intellectually honest.

If you run disads, I literally might just not evaluate them because I think they're so abusive (in second rebuttal, I absolutely won't). If you run a disad and call it a turn, I'll be furious (an M4A example: neg differential pricing is not a turn on aff access).

In general, I tend to think that a super turn-heavy strategy by the first-speaking team fringes on abusive and is really reductive to the intellectual quality of the round, so, while I won't intervene because of it, I will a) have a lower standard for how much frontlining needs to be done in second rebuttal and b) have a higher standard for the quality of the extension/weighing of the turn.

Name: Klaudia Maciejewska

School Affiliation: N/A

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: -

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: -

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 6

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 7

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? BP Debates, WSDC, AP

What is your current occupation? Competitive coach

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

Speed of Delivery: writing down important points, trying to type as much as possible fo being able to deliver RFD

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Comparison of both sides, depends on speaker if prefer clashes or other structure, should provide crucial points for the debate

Role of the Final Focus: unclear what final means

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Allowed but unstrategic - left little time for rebuilding and responding to rebuttal

Topicality: important, arguments should be linked to the particular context

Plans: structure and strategy are helpful

Kritiks: depends on the format

Flowing/note-taking: im writing most of speeches, marking my comments to be sure after the round what i add

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

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Ideally rebuttal, conclude outcome of rebuttal in summary speech

PFD is my stock and trade. I competed from 2006-2009 at all levels. My partner and I were among the top 18 teams at the 2009 NFL National Tournament in Birmingham, Alabama. Public Forum debate is the "common man's" debate. This means that there should be clear voters and impacts. Evidence battles are policy debate and have NO place in PFD. Debaters should aim for persuasion over coercion by force and for logic over a litany of sped red sources. Strong warrants; however, are equally critical for without them any argument is left without a leg to stand on. As far as rules are concerned I am not a referee, but I am familiar with the rule book. If you see a counterplan, tell me! If your opponents brought up new evidence or new arguments when they shouldn't, tell me! I WILL NOT connect dots for you; this makes it your obligation to draw attention to any/all mistakes that your opponents make in their handling of the round.

When it comes to LD..... I want to see that you stay on topic. Tangential arguments are great but in moderation if and/when they have a strong link to the resolution. I want CLEAR voters and you MUST link them back to whatever value structure you want me to use for weighing that round. I also respect good clash. Substance is valued over style or delivery but if you make yourself hard to follow then it is not my obligation to connect dots for you. I judge off the flow but WEIGHING is VERY IMPRORTANT!

When it comes to Congress..... Speeches should be clear, and impactful with specific credible evidence. Do not expect that I care about what you are saying. Make me care! This goes for your tone and impact statements as well. Participation in questioning is an absolute must, but quality matters more than quantity. If you can show clash that is an added bonus. It is, after all, Congressional DEBATE, not congressional oratory or extemp. Clash helps to clarify your position in comparison to other speakers and provides for a much more watchable/enjoyable experience overall.

LD debate

Not best judge for theory but I’ll listen and evaluate any clear argument

The framework debate should be prioritized in EVERY SPEECH. I prioritize persuasion, TRUTH over TECH, organization, and clarity.

and

Criteria for high speaks: Your arguments are supported by specific evidence and I am able to follow your arguments THROUGHOUT the round (obviously, the winner will get the higher speaker point. I rarely give low point wins.)

and

Read the policy section. It applies to LD as well.

POLICY

1. Whether the politic you're endorsing is institutional or communal, please show up with a method that makes sense and convince me it would work in practice

- I personally have done more K debate but I also admire the style of traditional debates: state action, counterplans, disads, give me all of it. But once again, make it clear and easy to follow.

2. If you're going to go for discourse as an impact/voter, tell me how the discourse you provide affects the demographic for which you are advocating and

3. Cross Ex is binding, it’s still a speech act

A hack for my ballet: The more simple the better. Aff should do something and the ideal neg strategy should be some case specific case turns coupled with a kritik or counterplan

PUBLIC FORUM

- I've done PF at several national and local tournaments

- Keep in mind that public forum debate serves to communicate complex messages with public forums so your discussion should ALWAYS sound/seem accessible to those who don't debate. No super special language, arguments about what should be"common sense/knowledge", or bad attitudes.

Quick questions and stuff: monbenmayon@gmail.com with the subject line "DEBATE JUDGING"

debate history: I debated PF and policy for Newark Science from 2015-2017. I graduated in 2017. I have been judging PF, policy, and LD since 2016.

Hello. I am a parent judge, and I have quite a bit of experience judging Novice, JV and Varsity PF.

Important things to note:

1) No spreading please. (I am helping my dad write this, and I can assure you he cannot keep up if you spread. If you spread, there is a good chance that even if you have a great argument, it won't make it onto his flow, and you might lose.) :( That being said, some speed is fine (he's not that old).

2) You need clear warranting, and this includes in rebuttal. Also, please explain link chains.

3) Please provide off-time roadmaps and do signpost.

4) Second rebuttal must respond to the first rebuttal. Rebuttals should be linear and respond to your opponents' points in the order they were said.

5) Extend your arguments.

6) WEIGH. You can start weighing as early as you want, but you MUST weigh in summary and in final focus. If you aren't telling me how I should judge this round, then I will have to decide for myself.

7) I don't flow crossfires, so if you want something in crossfire to make it onto my flow, you must bring it up in a speech.

8) Especially if your case has more than two contentions, please consider collapsing in summary.

9) Tech > truth... to an extent. If you say something blatantly false, I won't vote off of it.

please no theory

By way of background, I am a finance professional focused on healthcare.

As always, please be considerate of each other.

Have fun, and good luck! :)

I coach PF at Phillipsburg High School and am a pretty standard PF judge. I make my decisions based on weighing, rhetoric, topical arguments and argumentative structure.

PF Paradigm:

Email Chains: Do not include me on any email/evidence chains, I trust and expect you to present any evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a lot of argument on a specific piece of evidence (or more) I will ask for that card and evaluate it .

Progressive Debate: I’ll never drop anyone based solely on their case (unless it is offensive or otherwise egregious) but I will say that running theory or a K won’t get you very far with me. I’m open to the idea of a good faith interrogation of the logic of a particular resolution but just I would say don’t do it unless you have something really good.

Weighing: To me, comparative weighing and clear impacts are the bread and butter of debate. Impacts should be explicit and clearly backed up. I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, I care very heavily about impact-driven debates, and good weighing.

Other Notes:

• Frontlining in the second rebuttal is crucial.

• Spell out any links, turns and extensions clearly. I don't just want to hear the cards, I need to know what piece of evidence you are using. So don't say "Extend the Johnson card," Say "Extend the Johnson card which says a increase in..."

• Be sure to Signpost. A messy debate makes for a worse decision, so for everyone's sake it's good to know where we are on the flow

• Keep it civil during crossfire and grand crossfire

• I am usually good with speed but if you start spreading, I will stop writing. If you are going too fast i will motion to you to slow down

• I will almost certainly not buy your nuclear war impact unless it is directly related to the resolution

• If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

Hello, I am a first-time parent judge. I have little knowledge on the topic and would appreciate you contextualizing your speeches. Speak slowly, explain your arguments clearly, and most of all, have fun! Please be respectful during the rounds. Good luck!

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

St. Vincent de Paul ‘16

I like to be on the email chain :)- sara21parks@gmail.com

* NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS YEARS TOPIC*

Most important thing is be nice and have fun.

I debated policy for four years at St. Vincent de Paul, I was more on the kritikal side reading a lot of Fem on the AFF.

Overall: I was a 1A. I don't know a lot about the resolution this year, so you can totally shape how I view the resolution. But, don’t leave me in the dust; you’re going to have to do some extra explaining. I am not a judge that will do any work for you. Explain every link, impact, interpretation, ect.

Speed: It’s cool with me

Kritiks: I was introduced to Kritiks early on in my debate career and I like them a lot. All my affirmatives were k-affs and our 1NCs were always kritik. However don’t assume I’ve read of bunch of K literature. Explain you’re argument and explain your link. Don’t hide behind big words and power tags. Will vote on a K, but you must explain it clearly throughout the debate.

Framework: I don't believe fw should be the go-to strategy against K-Affs.By all means, include it in the 1NC to figure out ground and the boundaries of the aff. If the aff is abusive and you honestly think it should be excluded from the debate space, go for it. Paint the picture of a world of your Framework and which affirmatives should be included/ excluded.

Case: I think people completely undervalue the case debate. Spend more time on this, it'll help both sides in cross applications onto off-case arguments. Case clash is rad, Case Turns are also cool.

Disads/Counterplans: Run them, but be clear. They get super technical and so make sure you explain everything, don’t assume I know what’s going on in the world. Make sure they apply to the aff and you have good evidence. Don’t forget the perm. I'm open to all Counterplans and Disads.

Topicality: This can be helpful in policy and kritikal debates.. I default to counter interpretations so make sure your interpretation is damn good if you decide to go for it. More importantly, prove that the other team's interpretation is worse. What would the resolution look like under their interpretation compared to yours? Make sure to explain the impacts.

Theory: Read it when applicable, DONT BE CRAZY. If the argument is farfetched I’m probably not going to vote for it. But if someone is running a bunch of conditional advocacies, you should run condo. Edit you’re blocks for the round, otherwise my flow just becomes a cluster of irrelevant arguments.

I mainly stick to the policy side of debate and you see me in the judge pool for a PF tournament just know that you are running the show. Meaning you are doing a lot of explanation on your side making sure I know what your talking about. I am not familiar with PF.

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

- If you spread I will give you the loss automatically

- Collapsing is best, make the decision for me. If you want something considered weigh it throughout the round not just once.

- I have no experience with K's or progressive args

- I don't flow cross so if something important happens bring it up again. Cross is to question your opponent and make your arguments stronger.

- I will not flow new evidence brought up in final focus

- If you want me to read evidence after the round I will but make sure it is a contested piece of evidence and both parties agree

- Off time road maps are cool but if you say one please stick to it

- If you bring up a piece of evidence tell me why it is important. Do not refer to a card with just the tag and expect me to remember the impact, explain why it is important.

- I am cool with debate jargon but doing it just to confuse your opponent is not cool

- Being annoying, offensive, or overly aggressive will be looked down upon

-Framework is cool, just flow it through

-Weigh impacts throughout the round, I view that very favorably

Being the Vice President for Debate for Brooklyn and Queens, my judging policy/critiques are by the NSDA rules.

Off time roadmaps are ok, but it will not be taken into any affect of the end result.

If you or your team member goes over time, I will allow for you to finish up your thought, however, do not exceed longer than 20 seconds.

Truth in your contentions are worth more than technical stunts as carding, road mapping, etc. The core argument needs to be impenetrable. A card, quote, road map will not sway me in the least.

Be Cool

Be Relaxed

Be Yourself

Prefer students to acknowledge other contestants and talk to them instead of always reading from materials.

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Hi! I’m an experienced lay parent judge. Please speak slowly and send speech docs.

I am a fairly new judge but have judged four tournaments before.

Please speak slowly and clearly. Pretend I'm a 97 year old great grandma. If you're talking so fast that I can't understand you, I won't be able to comprehend your positions.

Please be respectful to one another. I will remove fractions of points for perceived rudeness or lack of good manners.

I am a Business Systems Analyst by profession. I worked at Capital One for 17 years. I appreciate clarity, logical reasoning, impact, and emphasis over a flood of data.

I'm new to judging Public Forum, having judged Speech for the last four years.

I ask that you speak slowly and clearly. Present arguments/points of view that address your position, supported by an adequate amount of evidentiary citations. Please try to be concise and to the point.

Please avoid a rapid delivery of arguments followed by a lot of citations which will make it difficult for me to follow and understand you. You can be firm and forceful in your positions, but not aggressive in your demeanor.

I'm a lay parent judge so please speak clearly, and use common jargon.

Any questions can be asked before the round.

Hi! I am Sandra and I have chaired and judged several international debate tournaments such as the World Schools Debating Championships.

I prefer a level of speed that helps deliver arguments in a clear and coherent fashion. I also prefer nuanced argumentation but I find value in different approaches to a topic. Feel free to be creative in your ways of reasoning as I will be approaching all rounds with an impartial and no rigid preferences outlook. Best of luck!

Add me to the email chain bwright@colgate.edu

About Me:

4 years of Varsity PF at Poly Prep Country Day School 2017-2021

British Debate at Colgate University 2021-Present

Currently majoring in political science and psychology

General Preferences:

I like to think I’m pretty fair with speaks, average is a 28.5 and go up or down depending on how you do.

I’m tabula rasa so I only vote off of what is in the round. Cross is non-binding, if an important concession or something happens in cross bring it up in speech. Defense is sticky with me so second speaking rebuttal has to frontline. Everything that you want in the back half has to be in summary, nothing new in final focus, pretty basic. Please weigh.

I’m fine with speed but in online debates audio can get kind of wonky so I recommend 200-250wpm online, 250-300wpm irl is where I top out.

Progressive Args

Ks: I exclusively ran Ks my senior year (Afro-pess mostly, with some Anti-colonialism and Fem-Ir lit thrown in there) so I know how to evaluate them. I’m most familiar with the stuff I ran but I’m down to hear any kind of K and I think these are the most fun and interesting debates to listen to.

Theory: I’m less familiar with theory than I am with Ks so it’s probably in your best interest to slow down a bit. If there’s a legitimate violation I’m down to hear it bc safety for competitors is the most important thing for me in a round.

Tricks: Don’t run these

Things I like

Entertaining crosses. I obviously don’t vote off of cross but I think it’s incredibly under utilized. Ask strategic questions, get some concessions, and have fun with it. I was known for being a bit sarcastic in cross but there’s a fine line between being sarcastic and being demeaning, learn where it is.

Strategy: Aside from the general not dropping case and extending, if you make some really cool strategic decisions even if I don’t pick you up I’ll probably give good speaks.

If you include a Marvel reference in your speech in a way that isn't cringy I'll bump your speaks by half a point because it shows that you actually read my paradigm and I'm a huge nerd.

Things I don’t like

IF YOU DO OR SAY ANYTHING RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ETC. I WILL NUKE YOUR SPEAKS AND DROP YOU.

Being mean to novices. Don’t do it. A lot of people debate a division up to learn, it’s how I learned how to debate as a freshman, just be civil and let it be a learning experience.

Prep stealing: This is something that’s become more of an issue in online debate. I can tell when you’re doing it, just stop. Especially if you prep steal and give a bad speech now you’re just embarrassing yourself.

Taking a long time to find evidence: if you’re relying on a card to win the round and conveniently can’t find it when it’s called, I’m going to drop the arg. This is annoying

Bad faith theory reading: if you read theory on a team because you don’t want to interact with a progressive argument they’re reading, you are probably going to lose. There are some legit theory v. K/theory v. SV debates, but the overwhelming majority of the time you’re just trying to get out of it.

Updated for Winter Invitationals 2022: Upenn/Harvard

My Pronouns are They/Them/Their

Personal Experience:

As a debater, I have over 6 years of competitive debating experience in Public Forum, both Chinese and US Circuit. I competed in various regional and national level tournaments. Just as a record I had runner-up and best speaker for NSDA CN National, broke in major US tournaments like the NSDA Nationals and UK TOC, with some octas from Stanford/Harvard Invitational. In a word, I participated in PF debate competitively with passion during my middle/high school years, and I had basic knowledge about LD, Policy, and BP format, I'd like PF to stay unique from "Diet Policy" though.

For CX: I'd like to make an early apology for not being an active CX debater myself, so don't assume that I would be too familiar with a lot of specific techniques, though I do like to watch CX videos and know basic concepts like Framework/Plans& Counterplans/all sorts of Critiques, etc.

For LD: I prefer progressive argumentation over traditional strategy, articulate as much as possible.

As a coach, I had over 2 years of coaching experience in China with middle and high school students, some of which have won major regional tournaments with 1st ranking in the Chinese circuit.

As a judge, I had over 3 years of judging experience, mostly in the Chinese circuit with NHSDLC and NSDA China, but I'm fully open to different styles from the Chinese and US circuits.

As a student, I study Computer Science at ETH Zürich(Yes, this is the Einstein school, NOT Princeton), if you have never heard of this school it's perfectly normal. Go on whatever ranking and check the first non-US/UK school or the first unfamiliar school, it's mostly it.

My professional knowledge is mainly about CS, Math, basics about international relations, and fundamental philosophy. Be careful with AI arguments since I might have an implicit bias about your statements if they go up against my algorithm knowledge.

Framework:

My perspective as a PF debater tends to focus on quantifiable impact analysis, but I also buy egalitarian analysis as a framework and critiques if you put them in the right schema, a good analysis around structural violence/inequality/capitalism/libertarianism/neoliberalism/accelerationism might earn you a win against a huge amount of statistical evidence.

If there's no framework debate at all, I will follow default cost-benefit analysis on quantifiable impact, if both sides failed to access any quantification, I will then evaluate link quality>general performance>emotional appeal(it should be noted that I don't often buy seemingly exaggerated impact like human extinction, nuclear WW3, world doom unless you can access a good amount of probability cards)

I'd also take feasibility into consideration even if it's a should-no-would resolution, basic supply-demand statistics /empirical successful examples should do just fine for that.

Speed:

Spreading NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I can easily handle speed over 1000 words/4 min from my empirical experience(I once went for 1200 words case in a major final and lost) I think the vast majority of PF speakers wouldn't go over this limit whatsoever, so unless you are a well-versed CS-Spreader I believe I can understand your fastest pace possible, but still remember this: speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST!!!!

Crossfires:

I appreciate respectful, peaceful, and fruitful crossfires, I flow BOTH crossfires and speeches, major evidence, especially data mentioned anew in cross should be re-emphasized in later speeches. Yelling and abusive behaviour will lead to speaker points deduction, but rudeness would not be a major RFD on my ballot at the end of the day.

For Online Events, I'd like to remind you again that normally conference Apps like ZOOM have automatic main voice detection, which means when multiple debaters try to talk simultaneously, one of them(normally the loudest one of all) would be emphasized and others weakened, so as basic decency I'd like to ask you to keep Q/A brief and productive because it's relatively hard to interrupt in online sessions, save some time for opponents to respond. Don't start making Speech/reading cards in Cross!

In short, have the basic decency of keeping things lean and saving time for each other.

Front-lining:

I do NOT require rebuttal speakers on the second speaking team to frontline opponents' rebuttal speech! Of course, it's appreciated if your time permits, but I would value direct responses and quality of rebuttal over front-lining against your opponents' rebuttal, that could be picked up in summary(AKA I would NOT just consider it dropped until after Grand Cross, don't try to sell me "any turns left unresponded in 2nd rebuttal are 100% conceded arguments", I will take responses from summary into consideration)

Summary and Final Focus:

No NEW arguments in final focus, summary should cover ALL voting issues about to be mentioned in the final focus. Do not just bring up "dropped argument" in final focus if it's only mentioned once in your case and was not picked up in your summary to point out opponents didn't respond to them etc. I appreciate impact analysis based on quantifiable evidence, in summary, you should try to keep the consistency of using good data and try not to get into sheer logical explanation/emotional appeal.

Critiques:

Simple standard: 1. alternative better than original plan 2. alternative mutually exclusive with the original plan, if both criteria suffice on a scientific basis, I will buy your critiques with high speaker points. But I would also accept offenses about counterplan not allowed in PF debate, however would not be a major contributor to my RFD. (Focus on Framework if Alt is absent, FW standard mentioned above)

Theory, and everything alike:

NO, you can try reading those, and I will still judge on my flow, but also still based on my usual standard mentioned above.