I believe that the most convincing arguments usually center around the most important aspects of a resolution. I am open to any argument that is logical and backed by excellent sources. A unique and creative argument can be a winner but it must be directly related to the resolution. I do not normally judge policy and do not enjoy spreading. However, some speed is quite fine.

I am a judge that values both substance and format.

For email chains/evidence exchange: chancey.asher@gmail.com

I am a lay parent judge. I am looking at Contentions, Rebuttals, Extend, Impact, Weighing. Also, I am looking at your links - if you are trying to link to an impact of 8 billion lives lost because whatever this debate is about will lead to global thermonuclear war and the end of humanity, I PROBABLY won't buy it.

What is your impact, and why is it greater than your opponent's impact?

I also love clean rounds. I start to lose focus when a round gets bogged down in technical disputes.

I here commit to examine my own biases, be aware that unconscious biases exist, and do my best to judge only on the content of the debate.

I am a historian.  I value research, think historical contexts are important, and believe that good arguments tell good stories, explain changes over time, but also take into consideration the contingent nature of history (or even the present moment).  No outcome is or was predetermined. 

I am also a college administrator. I am used to witnessing (and participating in) debates between very smart people, who are often out of their depth because the topic does not align with their individual area of expertise. Gaining real understanding of an issue is not just about learning a bunch of facts about it, but also about having insights into what you still don't know.

I am more persuaded by reason and quality of content than by speed and quantity of words.  Edit.  

Have fun!

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

I am a licensed attorney and parent of a debater. I ask debaters to present the most professional and polished version of themselves. Remember to initially identify who you are, what side you are on, and what relief you seek from the judge. If time runs out at any time during the debate, please ask for a moment to finish your thought/sentence (be very VERY BRIEF as you are already out of time) and also state what you are asking of the judge. Never let yourself be cut off and just let that go. Make sure every chance you have to present your case is used to the very fullest and that includes finishing your thoughts and asking for what you are there to ask for--that is getting the judge to rule in your favor.

I see a debate as my court room and you as current and future community leaders and I expect you to behave as such. To that end, please treat debate communication as though it were a persuasive, calm, thoughtful and rational conversation with a judge. Kindly keep your tone and pace conversational. If I cannot understand you because you are talking too quickly, too urgently or too loudly, I will not be able to follow along with your arguments and that could lead to a reduction in points for you. Also, please do not use any swear words whatsoever. Any foul language, no matter how insignificant you believe it to be, could count against you. For example, words like, "crap" will be considered foul. If you are not sure if a word falls into this category, I suggest you do not use it. Please do not use slang, either. Some examples of slang are: "My bad," or "You guys." Please use formal phrasing and proper English whenever possible. This is a formal setting which requires the utmost respect in your word choices, much like a court room. Kindly treat it as such.

In addition to the above, I expect clear, well organized and well supported arguments to be made with solid, verifiable, significant, and current sources as support. Good luck!

I graduated in 2021 from Pine Richland and did Public Forum all 4 years of High School.

PF: While I understand that public forum is getting more technical, I tend to prefer a more traditional style of debate. Generally I will look at arguments and your response to them as a whole and am a solid believer that you do not need to refute every single piece of evidence presented as long as you adequately deal with the larger point. This is not policy. I am fine with debate language, but please make sure it's actually backed up by substance.

Crossfires are important. I will pay attention to them. That said if a key point comes up, please be sure to carry it through your speeches. I like voters in summary and final focus. Carry through your framework if it is important to weighing or a relevant point of contention.

Please don't spread, it will be reflected in your speaker points. Generally, the average debate speaking pace is alright. Keep in mind if you speak too quickly and I don't catch your point I can't weigh it. Please time yourselves (I will keep official time) and be mindful of going over. You can always finish your thought, but after that I will stop taking notes.

LD: As far as Lincoln Douglas goes my preferences are pretty much the same as they are for PF. Make sure to carry through any framework, your value and value criterion throughout the round.

I really enjoyed my time in PF and want everyone else to have the same positive experience. Please be respectful, have fun, and try your best.

No me importa lo que de mí se diga Vida usted su vida, que yo vivo la mía Que solo e' una, disfruta el momento Que el tiempo se acaba y pa'trás no vira Bebiendo, fumando y jodiendo Sigo vacilando de party to' lo' día' Síguelo, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh (¡Farru!) Síguelo, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh (de rola y pepa) Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca Desacatao' Empastillao' (Qué maldita nota) (Arcoíris) ¡Fa-Fa-rru! Sube la' mano' y las botella' pa'rriba (¡blep!) Siempre la movie la tenemo' prendi'a Hoy vamo' a darle hasta que se haga de día Sigo rulitón en la mía Salió el sol, sol (sol) Prende la hookah y el alcohol (Y el alcohol) Y préndelo, oh-oh, woh-oh-oh (Woh-oh) Esto se salió de control (De control) Síguelo, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh (de rola y pepa) Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca (desacatao') Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca (empastillao') ¡Blep! ¡Fa-Fa-rru! (Qué maldita nota) (Arcoíris) No me importa lo que de mí se diga Vida usted su vida, que yo vivo la mía Que solo es una, disfruta el momento Que el tiempo se acaba y pa'trás no vira Bebiendo, fumando y jodiendo Sigo vacilando de party to' lo' día' Síguelo, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh (¡Farru!) Síguelo, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh (de rola y pepa) Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca Pepa y agua pa' la seca To' el mundo en pastilla en la discoteca Desacatao' Empastillao' (Qué maldita nota) (Arcoíris) ¡Fa-Fa-rru! Dimelo, Chino The Most Winning Victor Cárdenas White Star Sharo Towers La 167 La 167

Ask me for my preferences in round, thank you!

My paradigm as a judge is heavily influenced by my practice as a civil litigator. In policy debate, I see competitors as making a record before me. It is my job to evaluate the record in front of me and then reach a decision as to whether the affirmative team successfully affirmed the resolution. If I cannot reach that decision, then I must negate, because presumption is a thing.

It follows that if you're an affirmative team that wants to show up and do something other than affirm the resolution - by all means. I'm happy to listen to your advocacy, offer you as constructive feedback as I can or engage with your advocacy the best I can, but you aren't EVER going to get my ballot if you don't affirm the resolution. This holds true in CX or LD (which, let's be honest, is most regrettably a bad version of one-person policy in many places these days).

It also follows that I find discussions of the role of my ballot to often be tedious at best and outright pointless at worst. I will take under advisement what you think I should do with my ballot, but know that if you make an argument about the role of my ballot, and the other side drops it, I reserve the right to (and might well!) disagree with you anyways.

If you affirm the resolution, then I will evaluate the evidence you present and the negative's evidence. I'm willing to participate in the fiction that X plan -> Y nuclear war. I'm also willing to consider critical arguments, BUT I'm entirely open to the idea that answers to the K are not just new links to the K. Affirmative teams: you can safely defend more conventional ideologies and ways of thinking in front of me, and your answers to Ks need not "out-left" the K. Likewise, Negative teams: if the aff is basically designed to avoid linking to Ks, then I'm likely to find your links on politics to be a lot stronger, all else being equal. I offer the above examples not to be comprehensive, but illustrative.

I will evaluate cards and evidence carefully and critically. "Power tagging" cards is a good way to earn a 'L' and low speaker points. Your credibility matters. If your evidence, in un-highlighted parts, undermines or contradicts highlighted parts, I will consider that, even if unprompted by the other team. I don't expect omniscience or clairvoyance from debaters in-round, and I will evaluate evidence independently. If you cut a card to splice sentences together across paragraphs, I'm going to be really suspicious and likely ignore that evidence, unless the un-highlighted portions plainly supports your reading. If you splice a sentence together across two sentences, I will scrutinize your editing decisions.

I reserve the right to look up your authors' credentials and backgrounds and weigh them as I deem appropriate.

I see theory debates as equivalent to "equitable" arguments in the legal world. If you cannot demonstrate clear in-round prejudice, then your theory won't be persuasive, even if conceded, and you said "it's a voter." With that said, in-round prejudice can happen in any speech, so if the 2NR does something inequitable, the consequence of that strategy is the 2AR can introduce new theory arguments with no 3NR. Be strategic, but don't let gamesmanship cross the line into sharp or inequitable in-round actions.

I may frustrate you, because my paradigm is decidedly not "mainstream" for the activity. But I have tried cases in front of outstanding state and federal judges, and I do my best to treat you like I want them to treat me. I will do my best to fairly and dispassionately evaluate your arguments. I will do my best to reach a decision that is informed and that is logical, consistent, and based on the record you create in front of me. It is true in the law and life that a judge or jury or your peers will interpret facts and evidence and argument differently than you. It is both frustrating and an opportunity for growth and gaining perspective. I might frustrate you. If I do, I am sorry there is no appeal from my ballot. But, I hope you at least will come away thinking that I was fair.

Other things - I will ask an occasional question to clarify an author's name or a word I heard and did not recognize. But if you're going to read a K that involves terms of art in a literature, you should take the time to slow down and describe those words, their meaning, and what I am about to hear. I am not omniscient or clairvoyant. I may also ask a question that goes to the merits of an argument, but I rarely do so, and I only do so if I feel I must have an answer in order to reach a fair decision. If I do so, I may give your opponents a brief opportunity to respond.

I will also, on rare instances, consider facts in my personal knowledge, even if the other team does not raise them. While this is very rare, I have had to do so in this context: Aff team reads inherency cards "Legislation A on verge of passing." and a Plan: "Do opposite of A." That week I read (and cut) inherency answers that post-dated the inherency evidence by nearly a year and that were dispositive: "Senate Majority Leader says Legislation A not on agenda and will not be considered by Senate anytime soon." In such an instance, I cannot vote for a case founded on evidence that is not factually accurate, even if unargued by the other team. I gave the Aff team a chance to refute me and provide evidence in their possession that would prove me mistaken. They had none. Neg ballot. Brutal, in some regards, but correct in my view.

Finally, common sense goes a long ways with me. If the Aff runs some sort of "judicial modeling" advantage, and in cross, they can't provide concrete examples of US cases that were modeled abroad or explain how the judicial systems of the countries they're claiming the modeling benefits in work, then their high-level evidence asserting the effect just got a lot weaker. Likewise, if a Neg runs "States" as a CP, and the Neg can't explain why R/D controlled legislatures would pass the plan, then you've opened up the door to either a solvency deficit or Neg fiat abuse. If they don't know generally how many statehouses/governor's mansions are R/D, or how the plan is going to be perceived politically, their credibility is going to take a hit. Whether a case, a CP, a disad, or a K...if you advocate for it, be informed!

I hope this is illustrative. Again, ask me any questions you want, and I will be honest in answering them.

Intro/Affiliations

Email: zachlim804@gmail.com

- Former student at New Trier HS (2015-2019) and the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022).

- Experience: 6 years as a policy debater, no TOC bids, & NDT doubles (NDT '21) in college. I have been coaching for 2 years and judging for 4 years, albeit the past year and a half has been PF heavy.

**PF Stuff at the bottom

Online Debate

Cameras on preferably, slow down, and I don't know why this happens but wait until you know 100% that I am present before you give an order or start your speech. A black screen with my name means I am not there/ready unless I say otherwise.

Important/Relevant Thoughts

- For this specific topic, I am not familiar with the trends and arguments being made on the circuit, specifically the subsets, but I am knowledgeable on NATO as an organization from a previous college topic.

- My experience is policy-heavy, but in college, I strayed away from strict policy debating to more critical debating on both sides, mostly reading iterations of racial security and racial capitalism kritiks and critical affs with a plan. I am most comfortable adjudicating DA v. case, CP/DA v. case, and K v. case; it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.

- I find debate enjoyable and I truly appreciated judges who gave a full effort in paying attention and offering an understandable RFD so I will attempt to emulate that in every round that I judge. With that, the best thing you can do for yourself is, up to you how you go about this, to orient your debating around "making my job easy". Whether you lean critical or policy, be more reliant on explanation and spin rather than being solely reliant on what your evidence says. Show me the big picture and within that picture, point out any fine details that are important for me to evaluate. Be explicit, get straight to the point, and avoid unnecessary speak/fillers. Judge instruction is key.

- A judge is never going to be unbiased when listening to different types of arguments. However, pre-conceptions are malleable and good debating (lbl, explanation, etc.) can supersede argument bias, but given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how "good debating" is performed in round.

- Continuity in argumentation and explanation will be scrutinized. Having been on both sides as a 2N and 2A, I believe many final rebuttals get away with a lot of new spin/explanation, so as I have throughout judging debates, I will hold a higher standard for extensions and such.

- Absolutely do not read morally reprehensible arguments such as death good, racism good, homophobia good, etc. There is no room for that in debates, and it is not courteous to your judge or opponents. You will be dropped and receive a zero.

- The link below will take you to a doc that I wrote many years ago, containing specific thoughts I have about specific types of arguments. I honestly do not think it's as relevant as it was when I was a first year out, but if you aren't familiar with what I think of certain arguments, then feel free to check it out to gain some more clarity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d5pO-KRsf90F5Y-9Hfc1RlzRxsu21KCSxV9aVZFcRH0/edit?usp=sharing

- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions about my college debate experience as well as my time at Pitt. Feel free to email me or ask after the round!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum

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

Name: Jennifer Mazzocco

School Affiliation: Taylor Allderdice High School, Pittsburgh, PA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 13 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0 years

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: some speech judging experience throughout the last 10 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 years

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum debate, Lincoln Douglas debate, Parliamentary debate, Congress

What is your current occupation? 9th grade English teacher

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

Speed of Delivery – I prefer a traditional, or slower delivery with a focus on robustness of fewer arguments rather than superficial treatment of a higher number of arguments.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) I prefer a big picture review of arguments in the summary speeches.

Role of the Final Focus – I prefer the final focus to highlight voting issues and review where the debate “landed” on those issues.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches – I am in favor of extending arguments into later speeches. I prefer thorough clash on arguments and if there is more new arguments or evidence to be presented, I value that debate.

Topicality - no

Plans - no

Kritiks – no

Flowing/note-taking – I support teams pre-flowing or flowing during the round, and taking notes. I typically take notes while listening on major points.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I think style is important, but ultimately I value argument over style. I think the substance of the arguments and the quality of rebuttals and clash is the most important thing in deciding a winner.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, I think if they intend to win on it, it should be extended.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes, they should do both.

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

I have completed the PHSSL Cultural Competency Course.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity and are one of the core reasons why policy debate has little value as an educational activity, in my opinion. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk. I have never heard a theory shell run in round that didn't make me feel like I had lost an hour of my life that I will never get back - but hey, there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, and if you don't I'll evaluate it as I see it.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

In general, speak at a moderate speed, and be considerate of your teammates, opponents, and judges. Refrain from hyperbole. Please be clear, concise, and organized -- connect the dots for me.

I am not a technical judge. I will flow the best I can and evaluate your arguments but I am not comfortable with progressive rounds. Keep the round traditional (no tricks) or risk losing my ballot. There is no need to speed read. Please do things to make your speech easier to follow. Slow down/emphasize taglines. Signpost, and Roadmap off-time for clarity.

Debate and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I have no reason to vote for it. I do not intervene so debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Be clear about what I am weighing and what I should value most highly. Impacts should be realistic. Not every action could or will cause a nuclear war. Your argument should be clear and plausible. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

It is important to show respect to your competitors and approach every speech as an opportunity to teach and learn.

Hi I’m Shaaz-- I debated in both PF and LD on the circuit (shaazn03@gmail.com). Have fun and don't take it too seriously.

LD

If you're cramming prefs:

1- Trad, advantages, disadvantages, plans, counterplans

2- LARP

3- Theory

4- Popular K's (biopower, fem, cap, afropess, etc.)

5- Phil, Less intuitive K's (I don't keep up with K lit at all)

Strike- Tricks, blippy arguments, etc.

1. Tech over truth (to a degree): If your opponent doesn't contest it, it flows through as though it's true, but I'm a LOT less likely to vote on an argument that is blatantly false.
2. Speed is fine, but if you're spreading I need the speech doc.
3. I think disclosure is more up in the air than a lot of judges seem to. I don't care whether or not you do it, but if you do, do it fairly. Open to theory on it.
4. Help me do as little work as possible. Tell me why you won the round. Voting issues are key for my ballot.

PF

1. Crystallize. Tell me what you won, your weighing mechanisms, and why I should vote for them. You could be dominating the entire round but it'll almost always boil down to weighing.
2. I'm looking way more at the flow than the flowery stuff but obviously better speaking will boost your speaker points. I think I'm pretty generous with speaks in general.
3. I probably won't be paying attention in cross. Also won't be keeping track of time--trusting you for speech time and prep.

I debated 2 years of PF at Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh, PA; currently debating BPD and CPD at the University of Toronto.

Include me in email chains: Boomba.Nishi@gmail.com

I will vote off the flow and what gets extended the cleanest. Tech over truth to an extent just don't be stupid about it.

FOR USC SEASON SPARKLE:

I’m one of the most flow judge you'll get at locals (not to toot my own horn). I’m not as fast as I used to be for flowing probably cap out at 200ish but test my limits at your own risk. Its local so I doubt you can go too far for me. I know what I say about offs below but I don't think there's a reason not to run k/thoery at locals. Rather, I'd almost encourage it as I think a lot of the harms these try to correct go unnoticed in locals simply because parent judges don't know how to vote for/evaluate these arguments so teams are afraid to run them. But that's the whole point right – to make positive change in the debate space. READ WHAT I SAY ABOUT DISCLOSURE. If I’m feeling goofy and there's no offence at the end of the round I’ll probably just flip a coin.

Voting Issues: Only losers use them.

No: Tricks.

Speed: I’m okay with some speed just don't go nyooooom or I’ll stop flowing.

Theory/Ks: I think theory and Ks are on net good ie. they push for positive change and create positive norms. I don't really care if it's a local tournament if you genuinely want to read theory/Ks to make this change I will be more than happy. Please do not read progressive arguments as an easy way to roll inexperienced teams. I never ran theory/Ks so I’m willing to vote off of them just not the most experienced evaluating them.

2nd Rebuttal: Preferably putting down some defence

Cross: Don't care, Didn't ask

Don't Be: Rude

Timing: Please time yourself, I will also be timing and stop flowing after 4 minutes. Feel free to ask what impacts/responses I didn't flow but I’ll probably just tell you.

Disclosure: I will always disclose unless like tab tells me not to and is sitting in the room. Not disclosing is stupid and not conducive to actually learning. Just hang out and I’ll either disclose or just think out loud what my thoughts on the round are.

Make judging easy for me:

-Signpost

-Warrant

-Weigh

-Collapse

-Cleanly Extend: Not just card names. If it's dropped it's donezo.

I enjoy some banter in speeches (this doesn't mean be mean) and big fan of thought experiments

I'll give +.25 speaks for chess or footie references

I am a parent judge. I have been judging for this year.

I am a traditional judge. Speak loudly, clearly, and please do not spread unless you are experienced enough that you can do it successfully.

Hi! I am part of Pine-Richland's class of 2021, and I did Public Forum all 4 years of high school.

First, I believe in TRUTH>TECH. Public Forum has changed a lot since I began debating, but I still prefer a more traditional round. I will be judging based off of your flow/how well you carry your points through. With that being said, please don't spread. You don't need to have a rebuttal for every single piece of evidence presented as long as your argument as a whole is strong and coherent, and you deal with the overarching point. I am fine with speaking fast as long as it is still easy to understand and take notes on; if you are speaking too fast and I miss something, I will not be able to weigh it. Crossfires are personally my favorite part of debate, and I will pay close attention to them. If an important point is made in crossfire, though, please be sure to carry it through/elaborate on it in your other speeches or I can't really weigh it. As for summary and final focus, I like voting points because it makes the round clearer/easier to judge. I don't think off time roadmaps are necessary; if you want to outline your speech, do it on your own time. Finally, please be mindful of time.

As for LD, I've never debated it but I have judged it. As long as you uphold and weigh your value throughout the round, you should be fine. Be sure to impact and clash. Like I said for PF, I am fine with fast speaking but not to the point where I can't understand you.

For ALL debaters: Please be respectful throughout the round. If you are rude or continuously talk over your opponents, it will be reflected in your speaker points. I want you all to have fun and try your best! :)

For Debate:

1. No spreading and no off-time roadmapping: speaking quickly and fluently does not have to be spreading and you should have enough time to say everything you want to say within the clocked time (you can run a speaking speed test with me).

2. Balance evidence with fluid expression: arguments are only as good as how you make them, so don't just cram in lots of things and expect that, if the other side can't refute every single one of them, then I'll automatically award you the win (because I won't!).

3. If the other side introduces an argument when they shouldn't, then it's your responsibility to say that out loud when appropriate: I will not treat this violation the same way whether or not the non-offending side raises the issue.

4. You can agree with each other, but be careful: a lot of talented sides lose when they concede a point and then it becomes a stick wielded by their opponents the rest of the round, so don't put yourself on the back foot here.

5. Be respectful and error on the side of formality: it is rarely effective to be disrespectful, but more importantly there is a difference between being assertive and being pushy.

Balancing all of these factors is tough, but if you consider them closely you will begin to see what kind of comments you can anticipate for your performance in a round. Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge. I have been judging for 1 year.

My name is RJ Tischler, and I've been volunteering as a judge for speech & debate since 2016. Consider me a lay judge with a lot of experience — I’ve heard that the term “fl-ay” matches my judging style.

For debate:

Clarity is key.

Don't speak too fast (aka, no spreading. Aim for ~200 WPM or fewer).

Weigh the impacts at the end of the round for me.

Explicitly state what your voters are.

Not very familiar with kritiks/theory, but willing to hear them.

If you'd like, feel free to send me your case to read along: email rtischler@phillyasap.org

(JV/Novice debate)
Prioritize clash. That is the purpose of a debate. I am not inclined to buy arguments that "the opponents didn't respond" to contentions that you neglected to revisit & therefore didn't result in clash. If your opponent truly doesn't respond to an important contention, be sure to point that out in rebuttal or crossfire. Don't wait until summary (in PF).