Hello!

My name is Elissa Alvey and I am a parent <<shudder>> judge with one and a half years of experience judging Novice, JV, and Varsity at both local and national tournaments.

Public Forum: This is my preferred event. I don't mind fast talking, but I have to be able to understand you and your contentions clearly so don't spread like crazy please. I like to stay within the time limits given. I am familiar with the current PF Topics. If your case is good and your debate skills match I will be able to follow along no problem. Show me how smart you are and how well prepared your case is and convince me the other team is not as prepared and wrong. I like to hear weighing at the end to summarize your case.

Don't be rude! To your opponents or your judge. I'm friendly, fair, and look forward to hearing your cases!

Most of my debate background is in LD. PF debate should adhere to evidence standards. Full source citations and quotes in context. Challenges for full PDFs should be limited to serious questions regarding the source or quotes without sufficient context. I am open to all types of argumentation provided work is devoted to development in round. 

This has been updated since FFL VARSITY STATE 2024It's been simplified substantially.

• yes add me to the email chain: chmielewskigr@gmail.com

Short intro:

If the given argument is a wash or it requires me to intervene or do deep analysis on my own that's not on the flow I tend to look elsewhere as I think less intervention is better.

(LD)

I will take off a speaker point every time you say "they don't have a card for that" without justifying why that matters. It makes me think you couldn't find a better response on the flow so you took the easy way out.

1- LARP/Phil

LARP- yeah whatever give me your policy case I'll evaluate it.

Phil- please please please tell me how you clash with the opp don't just read me a bunch of Phil and expect me to magically grant you the magic carpet to the ballot.

Before the same person asks me about phil, yes I'll consider and can comprehend Hobbes/Kant/insert your stock phil person here. Yes, I think most of those ivis about those people are extremely lazy debate. This is put here to clarify when I get asked by people what phil I will/won't be persuaded by. If you have further questions yes I can clarify.

1- Theory/Trix

Theory- I'm cool with whatever. If you run friv theory I'm gonna have a low response threshold. If you spend your entire speech with whiny theory it will annoy me but I'll vote for it if I have to.

Trix- Yes I think they're useful, yes I like them. If you run trix like the aff can't have arguments and your tricks are especially egregious it'll have me looking elsewhere on the flow. If you have questions, ASK ME. I overheard somebody I judged at Blue Key whining about how I evaluate trix. If you don't clearly evaluate them, you risk a coin flip. More analysis on one to two trix> more trix extensions

Trix addendum- if you run a bunch of nibs etc and then don't do the work to properly extend them no I'm not voting for them. Just because I pref something a 1 doesn't mean you can do lazy analytical work or bare minimum extensions and expect me to buy them. No, a 10 second extension doesn't cut it. Don't read this at your own risk.

Trix addendum 1.2-If you read me an indexical, please explain it to me as I'm not overly familiar with them but can vote on it if explained super well

1.5- On T violations- if you give me a TVA and your opp drops it and you collapse on the T shell I'll vote on it in half a second (Update from Glenbrooks experience with a super super well done TVA)

2- K

- Please give me a functional alt. No, reject the [insert side] is NOT an alt. I'll consider just about any K but pleeeease explain the link clearly.

3- Identity stuff- I don't know the lit but will vote on it if explained well enough

4- High theory

Strike- non topical affs

• The resolution exists for a reason.

Strike- performance cases

- nope, find somebody else. I don't know how to evaluate it and you'll probably lose. Sorry.

Presumption-neg

Permissibility- aff

I heavily value contextualized extensions. I've seen far too many people punt a winnable round on crappy extensions.

- Tech> Truth

- If you're in my district and I'm judging you and we keep this virtual debate thing going and you want more clarity on a round and want coach to reach out to me via email or at a CFL/FCDI, they can either email me or find me at a tournament and I'm more than happy to go over the round. Additionally, if you're in need/want resources on specific things that you want to work on I'll see what I have in my backfiles. More education for ALL is a good thing. Debate is about learning.

[Insert default don't be transphobic/etc here]. Just don't. This is an inclusive activity, don't make this a non-inclusive space for people.

PF Prefs:

A) I refuse to vote for paraphrased evidence. Ever. Yes, really. I'll default to paraphrase theory if it's read and extended because I think paraphrasing has zero place in the activity. Your ability to misinterpret authors does not amuse me or give you access to my ballot.

B) Please signpost. If I have to guess where it is on the flow I'm not flowing and that only hurts you

C) If you don't weigh I'm gonna go for the bigger number absent a separate compelling reason to interpret the evidence a different way.

D) If you can't produce the evidence your opponent asks for within about 45 seconds I'm treating it as an analytic, not evidence. Be organized and prepared for debate.

E) Do NOT be that person that asks me to pre-flow before the round. If you ask me, I'm starting your prep time should you chose to ignore me and pre-flow anyways or letting your opponent speak if they're first speaker. It will also hurt your speaks. Be prepared.. you had plenty of time to do this either before round or before the tournament.

F) If you don't mention it in the summary don't mention it in the final focus because I won't evaluate it.

H) Defense sticks once applied unless rebutted BUT I think it's helpful to reinforce in summ/ff where the opp fails to garner offense if you think it's a round decider. If I think it's too messy, I'm ultimately going to punt on it as I don't want to potentially intervene.

I agree with fast pf and theory thoughts in PF of Charles Karcher. No, I don't think paraphrasing and/or spreading a bajillion cards or reading some irrelevant abuse story makes it more likely to get my ballot.

• Congress

• I largely agree with Quentin Scruggs/Grace Wigginton on Congress. If you want to know what that means, use the paradigm button :)
• • Stray bullet

I am relatively new to PF debate judging and have judged about 25 PF debates. I am ok with some speed, as long as you are clear when articulating your key contentions, subpoints, and rebuttals. While I do consider delivery, I am a flow judge and the team that is able to best argue and support their contentions with with logic and strong evidence, while effectively rebutting the contentions made by their opponents, will win the match. I place emphasis on when strong contentions (i.e., supported by clear evidence) are made by one team and not rebutted/addressed by the other team. In my view that's an implicit agreement with the contention.

When stating evidence, please ensure you provide the date when referencing.

On crossfire, my expectation is for each team to give each other the chance to ask at least one question.

I prefer for the teams to manage the debate round, including maintaining order and making sure to ask for prep time. I will have a timer, but teams are encouraged to maintain their time as well. I will ask at the beginning of the round, if teams want a 1-minute, 2-minute, etc. warning.

Please be courteous and respectful to each other.

Preferences:

- Speak clearly and slowly, speed at 7 or slower

- Be clear in your contentions. Example, #1....... #2.....

- On rebuttals, clearly state which argument you are refuting

- I typically do not have extensive background on the topic. So throughly explain your contention.

- Eye contact shows confidence and knowledge of the topic vs. reading from your computer

Etiquette: Do not like bullying approach. Can be passionate but must be respectful of the other team.

Length of Judging: first year judge

Hello, my name is Anchal!

I was a policy debater in HS and I am currently an LD/PF coach.

Treat me as a flay judge.

If you are sharing evidence you can add me @ anchal.kanojia@ahschool.com If you call out a card or would like me to look at evidence- make that evident in your speech.

For prep and your speeches time yourselves and your opponents. For speeches I usually keep a timer and I don't flow anything after my timer goes off.

Don't use debate jargon in place of explaining args.

Tech>>Truth

I'm cool with speed but your opponents should be comfortable with your pace. Always be polite and respectful.

For PF

It's a public forum- I'm not a fan of theory, unless there's actual in round abuse. Running disclosure theory against a novice team is abusive. Frameworks are fine.

WARRANTING - please explain your arguments. Do not say "extend this" without explaining why. And please refrain from claiming that you already proved something earlier on without explaining what you did.

As a strat- give me voters and essentially write out my ballot.

For LD

Theory, Ks, etc. are totally fine.

I'm a fan of Ks and cool frameworks :)

I am a lay judge.  Prior to your round, please send your cases to me at: kkuskin@hotmail.com, so that I can become familiar with your topic.  I typically look for classic argument.  

Some tips for success:

1) Speak clearly.  If I do not understand your argument, I cannot vote positively.

2) Be sure to support your position with facts. I will be looking for facts.

3) If you are spreading, be sure that I can understand you.

3) Be attentive and respectful to your colleagues and judges.

4) Remember to keep your own time.

I never competed in debate either in high school or college. I graduated from University of South Florida with a degree in Elementary Education and from Nova Southeastern with my masters. I have been teaching elementary education since I graduated college in 2003. My son is currently a 7th grader competing in PF. This is my first experience as a parent judge.

I would consider myself a lay judge. I expect students to have a structure in speeches and backup arguments with evidence throughout the speech. Speech should be conversational in style. Speakers should be clear and concise.

Please remember to have fun! Debate is all about learning, and if you’re not having fun there’s no point in debating.

Hello! My name is Jay Nolt. I am a lay judge, new to judging PF. I typically judge speech events, so I tend to value style and clarity. 

Background

I never competed in debate either in high school or college. My daughter is currently a middle schooler competing in PF. Although I’m a parent judge, I’m new to argumentation.

Debate Preferences

I would consider myself a lay judge. Always support your arguments with data/evidence. If you use logic and rhetoric to explain something, be sure to warrant it. Always weigh your arguments starting in summary if you want me to vote for your ballot. If you are unable to quantify your impact, I won’t be able to weigh your arguments effectively.

Speed

If you spread you will be voted down.

Pet Peeves

If this is the first round of a tournament, it’s likely I don’t know the topic as well as you will. Please explain your acronyms if it’s the first round, even if it means having to do it off the clock.

Evidence

Pretty simple, follow the NSDA rules and read the last name and year of publication.

TL:DR

Please remember to have fun!

I would consider myself a lay judge.

If it is the first round, please explain any acronyms pertaining to the topic. Keep track of your prep time. I will not intervene unless a team is accused of abusing prep. Follow NSDA Rules for evidence. Be respectful to your opponents. Do not spread, or you will be voted down. Don't talk too fast, or I may miss a contention and it will be your problem. Always quantify your impacts. Starting from the 2nd rebuttal, you should start frontlining arguments. Elaborate well, because I should not need to stretch your arguments after the round. Always remember: This is a debate tournament, so make sure you have fun!

Good with speed up to a point, if you go blazing and I miss it, I can't weigh it.

I need each team to tell me why they think they won the round, so I don't have to figure it out on my own.

I have no strict rules about what has to be said in summary, but I expect consistent argumentation. Something from the first four speeches should not just pop up in the final focus as a voter.

It is important that your evidence says what you say it says. If the debaters make a card(s) important to the round, I may call for evidence.

I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 17 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.

I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.

I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.

• My email: weixh232@hotmail.com. Please share your constructive with me.
• First year of PF judging.
• Speed: please do NOT spread, speaking a LITTLE faster than average is fine, but not too fast.
• Signposting will be really helpful, if I don't catch it it can't help you win the debate.
• Please avoid progressive arguments or theory, I am not well-versed in it and would prefer more traditional arguments.
• Time yourself!

I am a lay judge but a former English teacher and librarian. I insist on credible sources, quality research, and a well-organized debate. Please use introductory statements, transitions, and make frequent connections between the resolution and your contentions. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot vote for it. Weigh your impacts, tell me why your evidence is better, and tell me why your argument should win. Avoid spreading. AND PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence. It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self.