Alright cool so I debated Public Forum for two years and so I'm pretty well equipped to deal with anything you throw at me.

Don't worry about your speed, this is Public Forum and you shouldn't be spreading anyway.

I'll judge you strictly off the flow but do keep in mind that unprofessional behavior (getting very aggressive in cross, laughing at your opponent) will deduct from your speaker points.

If nothing else is offered, I resort to a cost-benefit analysis framework in order to accurately judge the round.

Finally, you'll get bonus points for puns or clever contention tags and please remember that this isn't meant to be incredibly stressful (I've been there, it sucks) and that you should be having a good amount of fun.

Hi! I am so excited to judge you all. I’m a senior at Newton South High School on the varsity debate team. My wish for everyone is to have fun and learn more about debate and what it's about. Tournaments are the best part of debate! Here are just a few things I'm looking for:

1. Explaining your warranting (reasoning, logic) of a point is super important. We don't know your case as well as you do.

2. Weigh! Tell me why your impact is better than their impact. That way I don't have to make my own subjective comparison.

3. Please signpost (keep track/say where you are in speeches) and try not to jump around too often. It helps you, too!

4. Anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. will not be tolerated at all. I will immediately decide to drop you.

5. If anything super important happens in cross, bring it up in one of your speeches because I'm not 100% focused on cross and might miss it.

Good luck and have fun:)

My tip to winning my ballot: WEIGH WEIGH PLEASE GOD WEIGH

also collapse and extend please, write my ballot in final focus

I am in my second year competing in college APDA :)

theovdatta@gmail.com

I did some PF

Here is my full paradigm if you care to read it, otherwise just ask me questions before round

postrounding is good, do it if you feel the vibe is right

update on theory: I default reasonability and won't change that stance. I will not evaluate CIs>reasonability, so if you read theory, don't read it this part of meta-theory, and be prepared for some subjectivity in evaluation. 99% of the time, debates will still come down to who is winning the warrants/weighing, I just want the room to maneuver in RFD. Additionally, No RVIs doesn't mean you can drop offense on your opponent's CIs, so don't try to implicate it that way - I will not buy this implication.

update on communication: I won't STOP you from speaking to your partner while they are giving a speech, but please don't do it. I will dock speaks, and I have never seen it been done well enough to justify both the perceptual loss and the interruption in thought process. Just do what I did when my partner missed an argument – write it big on paper, and hold it up for them to see.

update on speed: I did a lot of debate and I can flow very well. With that being said, I will not flow off of the doc (I think its a bad norm). Take this advice as you will.

I am a middle school debate coach, and I participated in PF debate in high school. I am familiar with basic Public Forum conventions, terminology, etc. I request that debaters speak at an even and measured pace.

coaching on the debatedrills club team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding mjp’s and conflicts.

use https://speechdrop.net/

tldr -

• disclosure is good.
• don't be offensive and arguments must have warrants to meet a threshold for evaluation. saying "no neg analytics, cuz of the 7-4, 6-3 time skew isn't sufficient" you need to justify why no neg analytics compensates for the time skew. won't vote on conceded claims.
• time yourselves.
• do impact calculus.
• be clear please

Hey!

Debated Public Forum for Boston Latin School in Boston, MA - currently Harvard Class of 2025. I can flow and know most PF rules, but it's been a bit since I've judged or debated so please be patient with me!

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

GENERAL:

- Racism, homophobia, sexism, anything that makes the round a non-safe space = lowest speaks + a nice big L

- Have trigger/content warnings and opt-out methods if you're discussing sensitive topics in great detail (e.g. domestic violence, mental illness, etc.)

- Don't go fast if: your connection won't allow it, you don't enunciate, or you're doing it in an exclusive manner (e.g. to scare novices). I'll dock speaks and you may take the L (especially if it's the last reason). The faster you go, the less I write down.

- I will probably time speeches and stop listening if you go overtime >10s. Please also time yourself!

- Clear + organized + good coverage = high speaker points

ROUND:

- Summary & Final Focus:

(1) Collapse - focus on your best 1-2 args

(2) Extend - re-explain them PLEASE

(3) Weigh - tell me why they're the most important. If neither side's weighing truly engages with their opponents', I will default to my less-informed judge opinion (AKA: the ~vibes~) which you probably want to avoid

- Mention important crossfire stuff in speeches

- I will tune out if you run progressive arguments (theory, Ks, tricks, etc). If there's a serious violation, explain it to me in paragraph or an easily accessible way if you want me to evaluate.

TECH (?): I'm basically lay at this point, please no sticky defense and not frontlining in second Rebuttal because you want to do them all in Summary. I will probably not pay attention to all the technical complexities if you try to pull some advanced maneuvers

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

Lmk if there's anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable! I hope you learn and have fun :)

Hi, I'm Natalie! I'm a freshman at Harvard, and I debated PF for four years at Newton South. I am a flow judge, but sometimes I flow in my head.

Preferences

• I won’t vote for theory
• No spreading (I won’t read speech docs, I only flow what I hear and understand)
• I like clearly explained warrants and thorough comparative analysis
• I don’t like blippy arguments and evidence or statistics that are not clearly explained

Speaks

• +0.5 speaker points if you work in a Taylor Swift reference
• -0.5 speaker points each time you're disrespectful in cross

Good luck and good debating! Let me know before the round begins if you have any questions or need any accommodations.

Middle School Paradigm:

• Choose a few arguments and make it very clear why they’re the most important

• Weigh your impacts!

• Explain everything (and remember to re-explain your argument from the resolution to the impact in Summary and FF)

• I like very organized speeches

• Summary and FF should be similar

• Be nice (especially in cross)

• Use they/them pronouns unless your opponents tell you otherwise

• If you are racist, LGBTQ+-phobic, ableist, rude, sexist, or are discriminatory in any other way, you will lose the round and may be reported

My longer paradigm - https://docs.google.com/document/d/17teFyL5H25AsRRIW5DLGVcL5NeqJjk4UPxy8e-RUKeE/edit?usp=sharing

Send Speech Docs!!

Email: kodumuru@umich.edu

Hello I'm Arun Kodumuru, I'm a Sophomore at the University of Michigan and I debated for 4 years in LD at Lexington Highschool

General Things --

1) If you are unclear and as a result I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear 4 times before I hop on Tetris.

2) tech > truth

3) Don't be bigoted -- I forget which paradigm I got this from but: "don't use words, phrases or slurs outside of your social location," period. You can run arguments that may be on the edgy side but just make sure your opponent is comfortable.

4) I'm good with any speed just maybe go 90% of your normal speed if it's early in the morning.

5) Use good ev ethics -- I agree with Tej Gedela's stances on this

6) More time spent on weighing + explanation is always in your best interest

7) If you're circuit going against a trad debater to get high speaks you can still read your usual circuit strat, but just don't spread.

8) Don't spread if you're going against a traditional debater -- you will get low speaks

9) Debate is tough and if you're feeling down watch this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGOQfLFzJj8

Quick Pref Sheet --

Theory/T - 1

K (Identity) - 2

Phil - 2/3

Tricks - 3

K (High Theory) - 4/5

Policy - 5

Defaults: (These can be altered and changed very easily based on arguments made in the round)

Truth-Testing > Comparative Worlds

Competing Interps > Reasonability

Drop the debater > Drop the argument

No RVIs > RVIs

Presumption Affirms > Presumption Negates

Permissibility Negates > Permissibility Affirms

Layers from highest to lowest: Theory, T, ROB, ethical fwrk

Novice LD --

I will evaluate the debate based on the arguments made in the debate rather than ethos. However, ethos will determine speaker points. I would prefer that you do not spread if your opponent does not spread or read arguments that your opponent may not understand and cannot engage in (i.e theory or tricks). DO NOT read tricks in a novice debate, I will vote on them but you will get 25 speaks.

DO WEIGHING! Most novice debates come down to who weighs there impacts better so please do weighing. Debates without weighing make me sad and are often irresolvable. Clash with each others arguments as much as possible.

COLLAPSE! Don't go for every argument you read in the debate. If you read 3 contentions choose 1 to extend in the 1AR and 2AR and do lots of weighing for why that 1 contention comes first in the debate. You also don't need to extend every card in the aff - extend a few and compare your evidence to theirs.

How to get high speaks: Be respectful, Collapse, Weigh, Clash with your opponents arguments, Use CX strategically.

Varsity LD --

Tricks -- Sure but here are some caveats -- The warrant for an argument starts at 0 and then goes up, with that being said just make sure there's an actual justification for your tricky arguments. Be truthful during cross and I would appreciate it if you formatted your doc so that I could see each argument. Also the roadmap is super important with these debaters so please walk me through the order for each flow and whether I should flow a certain argument on a separate page.

-- If you have analytics pre-written in a constructive speech send it

T/Theory -- Yeah sure go for it. I every read shell from condo to glizzy theory throughout my career. I'll always be technical, but my threshold for reasonability also decreases with the frivolity of the shell. Structure your shell and make sure I know what I'm voting on. Make sure to do lots of framing and weighing for different impacts in the round so that I can judge the round off the flow.

-- Don't read disclosure against traditional debaters, I'll still vote on it, but your speaks won't be lookin too hot.

K -- K's are dope and I'm always open to them. In debate I primarily ran Mollow and Queerpess as my main K strategies, but I've taken classes on Nietzsche and looked into Berardi. I will say I am a lot more comfortable with the identity side of K debate but I'll evaluate your wacky K's as well. Don't spend five minutes on the overview about your theory, I would much more appreciate if you do the explanation along the line by line. Also framing is a huge part of these debates, just make sure I know what your model's orientation looks like.

-- If you're reading a reps K please proactively explain why I should drop the other debater/whatever your impact is -- "that's a voting issue" isn't a warrant.

K affs -- Read them, go for it, I don't care if you don't implement but explain your model of debate and why it deserves the ballot. That being said I will not evaluate call out arguments or arguments based on out of round violations other than disclosure. Lastly, an explanation for your method is super important -- I need to be able to repeat back to you what it is that the aff does in order for you to get the ballot.

Policy/LARP -- Yeah policy is dope, I just don't have the most experience with this style of debate

-- I live for impact turn debates! -- If you actually understand the turns that you're reading and give me a good explanation of them your speaks will be rewarded handsomely.

Phil -- Philosophy is a very interesting style and I advocate for it because of how specific it is to LD. That being said I understand most of my phil experience in debate was between Util, Kant and Hobbes with a little bit in Virtue Ethics and Hegel. Some of the more abstract philosophies that are read these days are a little harder for me to digest, but with a good explanation of the meta ethic and standard in a round I should be able to understand your argument. I also encourage debaters to cut substantive evidence for the syllogisms of their frameworks -- it just makes the argument a lot stronger.

-- Please enunciate more on your permissibility triggers and provide sufficient explanation for them. I'm not willing to pull the trigger for you for a 1 second trigger you made in the NC.

for novice tourney: just be nice and have fun! Please time yourself, I will be timing too but I would rather not cut anybody off. And plz wear mask ty

PLEASE WEAR A MASK!! And wear it properly

***Let me know if you need any accommodations before round.

Im a lay judge, ive never hesrd of debate before

Hi, I'm Aris (they/them) and I'm a senior at NSHS. I've been doing PF for four years.

Tech>truth

1. Be nice. If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc. I will drop you. If you're unnecessarily rude to your opponents, I'll tank your speaks.

2. No theory or K's

3. I only evaluate extended args in FF, dont drop your links or impacts

4. I won't flow over time.

If you are running a sensitive argument, use anonymous opt-in content warnings like the one linked here before round/speeches.

*Also, if you're comfortable, please let me know if you have a preferred name and/or pronouns that aren't in tab.

If you have any questions, email me at aris.li.email@gmail.com

Hello I'm Adam and I'm a 3rd year PF debater from Newton South

Add me to the email chain - adam.rotberg09@gmail.com (this is solely for convenience in case y'all ask me to look at evidence, I'm almost never looking at evidence unless a team asks me to)

VARSIRY:

Typical flow judge

---- For Novices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Weighing is the easiest way that you can get me to vote for you. Please make it comparative though. Also please remember to also extend a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus (and it should be the same warrant and impact).

2) I don't vote off cross. Obviously I'll pay attention and give you feedback as to what were strategic questions, etc, but nothing you say in cross will be written down by me. That means that you should focus on asking about things that will help you out, not asking about things and saying things that should probably be in a speech.

3) Please please please collapse on just one or two arguments. I do not evaluate rounds by counting. I will only vote for something if there is a warrant and impact and ideally weighing. If you extend three contentions in summary/final focus, you have to do this for each contention.

---- Things that’ll boost your speaks -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giving your opponents prep time if they use all of theirs up +1

If you say PROtention instead of contention when referring to the pro's contentions +0.5

You make me laugh in cross +0.5

Hi! I'm Claire. I'm a senior at Newton South and I do PF.

for speeches:

- tech > truth

- if you spread send everyone a speech doc

- extend/warrant your entire link chain, extend your impact. I love good narrative

- please collapse

- please weigh, and explain your weighing; don’t j say “we outweigh on probability,” tell me WHY you outweigh

-try to make summary/ff structure somewhat parallel each other. If there is no weighing I default to whatever arg I think has the clearest path to the ballot

for cross:

- I don't flow cross, I'll occasionally listen; if there's an important point bring it up in the ensuing speech or I won't evaluate it

- be assertive, don't be rude

- I'll be typing up comments/feedback on my rfd during cross

other things:

- I have not evaluated prog before but I am def willing to

- if you run a sensitive arg (anything that would need a TW), send an anonymous opt-out form before round that everyone can fill out

- if you guess my favorite band i'll be happy

- if you have any questions or need to add me to the email chain: claireruan123456@gmail.com

good luck!

About Me:

Georgetown LW

Homestead MW

Put me on the chain: zidao.debate@gmail.com.

If you are interested in debating at Georgetown or attending Georgetown camp, feel free to reach out!

TOC Update: I have done a moderate amount of topic research and have judged 26 rounds on the fiscal redistribution topic. Explaining acronyms and highly niche things would still be incredibly helpful.

Conflicts: Westwood, Northside, GBS, Woodward.

Top Level:

Debate is a competitive activity that emphasizes research and persuasion. The best debaters possess skills regarding both.

Great debaters make strategic choices backed up with well warranted arguments and well researched evidence. I love seeing confident debaters demonstrating the culmination of a year's worth of research through the arguments they make, whether that's an innovative new counterplan or a topic specific K.

I don't think I have any major anomalies as a judge that should heavily impact the way you debate. I am open to judging and deciding any argument.

My biases will only come into play at the absolute margins. All can be overcome with technical debating.

I have three non-negotiables:

1 - Debate should not be about issues that occurred outside the round. If something has occurred outside the debate that threatens the well-being of any of the debaters, I will end the round and go to tab.

2 - Everyone must follow speech times, speech orders, prep time, there will be one winner and loser, etc.

3 - No asking for speaks or crowd participation.

Decision-making:

Tech over truth. However, truth significantly helps your ability to win the argument. Unwarranted or ridiculous arguments can be easily dismissed, but you must answer them.

Zero risk is possible, but my threshold is higher than some other judges. For example, if the 2NR drops "fiat solves the link to the politics DA" and it was well-warranted in the 1AR, I would likely assign the DA zero risk.

Try or die does exist. It is when either in the world of the DA or the case, there is no defense to the claim that extinction is inevitable (Ex: 2NR goes for only alt causes to climate change). However, I can be persuaded to discount that frame by either team.

Author quals matter. Cards written by undergrads, etc. should not be given much weight.

Clarity and ease of communication > extremely fast/unclear subpoints that are impossible to flow. Nine times out of ten you are better off slowing down and emphasizing strong moments of connection.

I am not a robot. Debate is a communicative activity. Sounding like you're winning will help.

You can insert re-highlightings if it's within the text of the card that was already read, but you must give it context and explain the implication. If you're inserting something 3 paragraphs after the original card, you have to read it.

If your evidence is extremely under-highlighted, you will have a tough time selling me in a close debate.

Theory:

On the Aff, everything seems to be a reason to reject the argument except condo (but you have to say it).

I will judge condo like any other debate. However, I am intuitively more persuaded by Neg flex than most Aff objections.

The less intuitive the CP is, the more likely I am to be skeptical of it absent evidence. I am a harder sell for solvency advocate theory.

T vs Plans:

Topicality says this debate should not have occurred because the Aff was not within the bounds of the agreed upon resolution. Therefore, it asks me to forego evaluating a debate about the topic in favor of punishing the Aff.

I default to offense/defense in lieu of a reasonability argument. However, an offensively framed reasonability argument can be persuasive to me in light of my above thoughts. This must be grounded in predictable and qualified counter-interp evidence. Additionally, the Aff must win a significant amount of defense to Neg standards.

I don’t view reasonability as a gut check or a decision based on “vibes.” A successful reasonability argument still requires the Aff to win offense for why viewing the difference between two interps through the lens of offense/defense is a bad frame. It is also grounded in the reasonable doubt burden of proof in criminal law.

I am most likely to vote Neg when they are winning a large link to limits, doing concrete impact calculus, and explaining why they have an inroads to predictability/why Neg ground outweighs.

DAs:

DA turns case/solves case can be high impact. The earlier this debate gets started the better. It's also far more persuasive if you can get it higher up the link chain (ie: link turns solvency > nuke war turns warming).

I care a lot about the story-telling component of DAs. In other words, don't debate the parts of the DAs like a bunch of disaggregated pieces without a clear vision. Focus on the core narrative of the DA and ensure that your line by line supports that narrative. Ultimately, I need to be able to articulate in a few sentences the thrust of the scenario the Neg is trying to sell me. Similarly, the Aff needs to explain why the Neg's story is inaccurate.

Impact turns can be great debates, but the closer they get to spark/wipeout the more they start feeling like bad debates.

CPs:

Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates and what internal links or impacts the Negative is claiming it solves. This necessity is magnified by vague 1NC planks without solvency advocates.

Compare what the counterplan does to the 1AC internal links/impacts. Explicit comparison of these warrants can be a great help when evaluating the "sufficiency" of counterplan planks.

Not the greatest for process stuff that is not about the plan. If you have a net benefit that is a reason the plan is bad or even genuinely mutually exclusive with the 1AC, then I will be extremely receptive on competition. However, most consult and process backfiles are not competitive given equal debating. Best route to an Aff ballot vs these CPs are perms. This preference, like all other preferences, will not come into play unless the debate is extremely close.

If two teams are advancing different visions of competition in the final rebuttals, I will strictly evaluate the offense and defense for each interpretation.

PICs are fine if they result in something different than the Aff. Not the best for word PICs that do the entire plan. If you have good evidence that the inclusion of a certain topic word affects the plan implementation, then I am much easier to sell on your word PIC. This needs to be grounded in an argument about what constitutes a function.

Ks:

The more your K is secretly a counterplan and a DA, the better I am for it. If your K does not exclude weighing the plan, I find it important for there to be an associated framework argument that checks back against an otherwise relatively persuasive 2AR on perm double bind.

I'm not willing to split the middle ground on framework arbitrarily. If the Aff is saying "No Ks" and the Neg is saying "Only Reps Matter" in the final rebuttals, I will decide on one or the other. However, either team can advocate for a middle ground during the debate and I will be receptive. If you are doing this, make sure to clearly explain what your interpretation looks like and how I should make decisions based on that framework.

I am worse than average for Ks that entirely moot the plan. If equally debated, I find fairness and clash objections to these relatively persuasive. I evaluate these type of Ks similarly to how I would evaluate competition for a Process CP. To win, Affs need to be technically sufficient and answer all tricks/checklist items.

The best 2NRs make clear strategic choices on the K. I find myself voting Aff most consistently when the 2NR fails to collapse the debate down to a core set of issues. (Ex: Going for too many links, trying to both win fiat Ks and links to the plan, not developing your core theory of power enough). Similarly, most 2ARs against the K have to win a few core issues, and the rest usually falls into place.

K Affs:

I will flow and listen to any 1AC. You do not have to read a plan. All you need to do is out tech the other team. If you can’t do this, I am likely to be persuaded by T.

Against T, I am equally fine for an Aff that defends a counter-interp and an Aff that just impact turns. If the Aff wins that topically itself is violent, then a lot of objections about "models" or "ballet solvency" seem to go away. However, I find most objections to the reading of topicality unpersuasive.

I have no experience adjudicating K v K debates. I don't find "no perms" persuasive, but am entirely open to other things besides the advocacy statement being a basis for philosophical competition.

I am also good for impact turns. Does the 1AC say "attempting to control other states" is bad? Sounds like NPT Good is offense. Did the 2AC say reject "all instances of American imperialism?" Sounds like you can say Heg Good. My biggest comment about going for these sort of impact turn 2NRs is that teams need to do explicit judge instruction about what should be a "win condition" for the Neg. This will help hedge back against a 2AR that says it's only a debate about debate. Similarly for the Aff, I think defending your epistemic commitments, either through substantive answers/cross-apps from case or Ks of the impacts, is more persuasive than no linking everything.

If the Aff reads a plan but says it's good for a deontological reason like Kant or Buddhism, I think T is basically unwinnable.

Ethics/Decorum:

Assertiveness and humor is great and will boost your speaks. Have fun! I love debate and love to see people enjoying the activity.

Minimizing dead time in debates will not only allow me to make better and more helpful decisions (by giving me more decision time), but will also help your speaks.

Clipping= L + 0. This needs to be multiple lines, not a couple words. Any team may initiate an ethics challenge about clipping or other procedural violations (there must be recorded evidence). If I conclude the team is incorrect, they will lose the round and receive a 25. I will also self police this.

Overt sexism, racism, homophobia, etc = L+0. I am an educator that is responsible for the well-being of minors during the duration of the round. Threats of physical or psychological violence will never be acceptable. I will decide where to draw the line, but it would behoove you to ensure that you are FAR away from that line as possible with your decorum. I will not hesitate to instantly end the round, give you an L+0, and escalate the situation to tab.

Speaker points:

If you opensource (every card you've read) and let me know before the RFD, you will get .2 extra speaks.

If you give the final rebuttal without the use of a laptop, you will get .2 extra speaks (inspired by DKP).

Public Forum Paradigm:

I occasionally judge middle school PF rounds for Holy Trinity, where I am an assistant coach. Although I am a college policy debater, I do not think public forum should be a speed contest or obscure critiques/counterplans should be the focus of the debate. I will not be receptive to teams running these arguments as "cheap shots," especially in middle school.

The three things I care about the most for public forum debates are:

1. Answering your opponents arguments in an organized fashion. I love when debaters specifically reference arguments by labels, (ie: "their biodiversity argument") and then respond to that argument where they reference it. It makes it easier for me to decide the debate. Jumping around different arguments or disorganized speeches make it harder for me to decide.

2. Making strategic choices and doing impact calculus. In final speeches, I think there are little to no circumstances where debaters should be extending multiple contentions/arguments. Public forum speech times are very limited, so it's best to focus on the strongest argument you are winning and play defense to your opponent's stuff. Explain why your impact or argument is more important and why it matters.

3. Paying attention/flowing. Taking notes of what your opponent is saying and paying attention to what arguments they did or did not make are all important. I like it when debaters point out mistakes or what opponents said in prior speeches, because it shows me they're paying attention.

Have fun! Debate is a competition but it's also a fun activity that allows you to learn new things and make friends.

Hi everyone! My name is Wolfgang Wuerker. Pronouns he/him/his.

As some brief background, I competed in traditional LD, Congress, British Parliamentary, and CX at various times, though I also have some level of experience with most events. I'm currently studying psychology & physiology on a premedical track at the University of Wyoming. If you have time, read the general that's the important one.

I have some general notes right below this and some more extensive ones below that.

- I will not tolerate any hatred. This means any sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. If you choose to be hateful, you will be given 0 speaker points, the loss or last place, and probably be reported to whoever is necessary. Just be a good person.

- I am happy to answer any questions you have before, during, or after. Do not hesitate to ask. I won't put my email here, but I am happy to give it in the round if you'd prefer.

- Just to keep things consistent, I'll give all events and all speeches a 10 second grace period and I will verbally cut you off after that.

- Have fun and good luck!

Speech & IE Paradigm

My philosophy on speech events is pretty simple: I'll rank the speeches holistically and to the best of my ability. The only thing that's an absolute no-no for me is being rude to anyone including competitors, myself, people in round or out of round. Otherwise, just have fun.

Debate Paradigms Traditional LD (and PF where applicable)

- Starting at the top: I enjoy a good value clash. LD is a debate within a moral framework so go in-depth. I haven't read everything (and at this point I may be a little rusty) but I know my basics and a framework based on philosophical theory has a much better chance of winning than a Merriam-Webster definition.

- When it comes to contentions: Signposting is a must. I will be flowing and if I don't know where you are at in the 2R I will probably lose it and forget about it.

Progressive LD/ CX

- Keep in mind I have some experience with both but not extensive and it was a while ago, so act accordingly.

- On speed, I can understand it but do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can barely understand you I will not understand your arguments either.

- Signposting is a must. I'm a flow judge and without signposting, I will probably put your arguments in the wrong spot.

- My CX philosophy is fairly straightforward. I'm open to most things Ks, Theory, etc. but keep in mind that I wasn't too deep into CX and might need a walking through if it's too complex an argument.

- I think that analytics and CX are the best ways to judge how you are as a speaker so don't let these be the areas you don't give any thought to.

Congress

- I will rank the PO in the top 5 somewhere unless they give me a reason to do otherwise so don't be afraid to chair. I will give a PO 1st if they earn it.

I'm a Newton South debater

If you wanna run any weird stuff just make sure it's clean

I can keep up with spreading, but I'd rather not

Be civil-- I shouldn't have to explain that

Have fun!

also if you're funny I might give you more speaker points, but that shouldn't be your priority of course

--for AB NS scrim

I am a lay judge

Hi all! I'm Robby, and I've debated for Newton South High School for the past 3 years.

Things I'm looking for in speeches:

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal should be at least frontlining turns, as second summary is too late for opponents to respond.

Summary: This is a time for people to extend their arguments and tell me why they win the ballot. I also highly encourage collapsing as it is cleaner on the flow, and easier to understand the arguments.

Final Focus: Do not bring up new arguments in final focus. Final focus should mirror what is said in summary. This speech should sum up the round and why I should give you my ballot.

Cross X: I don't really pay much attention to the content in Cross X so if there is something that I should know, please bring it up in your speeches. However good cross presentation can get higher speaks.

Speaking of how to get good speaks:

Speed: I'd consider myself a flow judge, but do not spread or read so fast nobody can understand. Make sure you are clear and concise.

Signposting: It just makes the flow easier to follow and to lessen any confusion.

Weighing: do not just tell me an argument to vote off of, but tell me WHY I should prefer your argument over your opponent's.

Time: Just don't go overtime.

Theory/K's: I don't believe in theory or K's, you should be debating the resolution given to you, not why someone didn't put their case on the wiki. If you run either of these, I will instantly drop you.

Last but not least:

Be nice. If you are sexist, racist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, or anything that targets other minorities I will drop you and give you low speaks.