Hey guys, I'm writing this for my mom on her tab account. I do Varsity PF debate, so yeah this is a parent judge.

Background: My mom has worked in healthcare for 30 years, she has a Masters in Public Health and before that she was in the Peace Corps. She cares a lot about respect and making people's lives easier. She is very smart, so please don't completely lie and expect to get away with it. She listens to me rant about debate so she knows what's going on. Even though she is a parent judge and technically lay, she says she flows on paper. She has been judging for three years now, so I would treat her as more of a flay judge.

When you enter the round, definitely introduce yourself. It isn't super important but it will help her remember who is who.

She prefers when you time yourself, just don't go too overtime or under time or it'll probably look bad.

Try to be polite in the round, do not belittle your opponents. It is better for you to let each other speak than interrupt each other too much.

Speaking of, my mom can understand when you speak fast. If you're full on spreading you might want to let her know beforehand. That being said, if you don't need to spread, then don't spread.

My mom doesn't love it when debaters demand she has to vote a certain way or else. Instead, I would recommend saying you urge a con/pro ballot or even saying "please vote..."

Lastly, she isn't a fan of disclosing. She will disclose if it is necessary for a tournament or in a final round.

Okay good luck hope you do well. Please be nice to her!!!

Hi! I debated for four years at Hunter.

-Most important thing is to HAVE FUN!!! <3333

-Please speak slowly! Think it's educational to say good material in fewer words!

-I don't really care about evidence! Just no outlandish claims.

-If both teams are okay with it, let's skip grand cross... I never find it that productive.

-Please pick ONE argument to extend in the latter half of the round and weigh! All of my RFDs are usually "this team weighed and that was compelling to me."

-I really like watching great speakers. If you are funny, please be funny! (conversely, if you're not, don't)

-Please content warn any potentially triggering arguments!

Hey everyone, I'm Ely.

In high school, I primarily competed in traditional LD and championed NCFL. I also debated for Yale.

Please include me on the email chain: elyaltman@gmail.com

I agree with pretty much everything Anthony Berryhill says.

GENERAL:

Run what you want. I'll do my best to evaluate it. Communication comes first though. If I can't understand your arguments and warrants, that's on you, and I have no problem making that my RFD.

I like it when debaters collapse effectively on arguments. Crystallizing the round goes a long way with me. I also like to see debaters cede the true parts of their opponent's case but give nuanced analysis on why they outweigh.

Humor is always appreciated and will boost speaks.

Short Prefs:

traditional debate - 1

Ks and phil - 2 if explained well but 4 if it's incomprehensible. always better to err on the side of explaining.

LARP- 2

T/theory- 3 this is generally boring to me, but I'll certainly vote on well-warranted/egregious violations. Also fair warning: I'm inexperienced with T. Run it if you need to, but make it easy for me to understand/vote for you.

Tricks - 4/strike.

Traditional LD:

Here's how I will vote: I decide debates through layers. Framework, observations, burdens, etc are all crucial to structuring the debate. I look to what operates at the highest ground, decide who won that point, and move to the next layer. Thus, it would benefit you to try to structure the debate in such a way that you have a win condition.

Here are some things that’ll make voting for you easier for me.

1. ENGAGE WITH FRAMEWORK. Weigh frameworks against each other. Even better if y’all haven’t agreed on a FW yet, tell me how you win under both your FW and your opponents (if you do this, I’ll boost your speaks).

2. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. If you don’t weigh offense, I have to guess at the end of the round whose impacts are more important. You don’t want that because it makes the round very subjective on my end. Instead, go the extra mile, avoid that, and tell me explicitly why your offense is more important than your opponents.

3. Please do extensions correctly. Do not just say "extend my second contention" or "extend Warren 13" and then move on. Extend the ev or arg, rebut any arguments they made, explain the impact of the extension, and THEN move on. If you don't do them correctly, I won't feel comfortable voting on them. The only exception is that because the 1AR is more time-pressured, I'll be a bit more lenient there.

4. I like numbered responses and overviews. They make the debate easier for me to flow/understand.

5. Round narrative is very important. Don’t lose sight of what this debate is really about because you’re too busy focusing on an irrelevant tangent that won’t factor into my decision. Tell me overall why your world is better than your opponents. Tell me who you help, why they need help, why you’re the person that best helps them, and why that matters. That’s how to win in front of me.

6. Voter issues. Do them. It makes evaluating the debate much easier. A bit of advice. Negative, if you correctly predict what the Aff voters will be in NR and tell me why I shouldn’t vote for it, that’s a great strategic move, and I’ll boost speaks. Affirmative, in the 2ar, interact with the Neg voters, and I’ll boost speaks. They literally just handed you on a silver platter the arguments they’re hoping to win. So attack or (better yet) turn their voters! Outweigh their voters with yours!

Progressive LD:

I can evaluate circuit debate but don't enjoy it.

Things I like: warranted out link chains & probability>magnitude weighing. Also, I will always prefer logical analytics over poorly contextualized evidence. Lastly, please weigh.

Things I dislike: when debaters read literature they don't understand and can't make comprehensible in round, shady disclosure, friv theory, etc.

Speed: I probably wouldn't be able to flow finals TOC, but with that said, I can handle decent levels of speed. We should be good if there's a doc.

PF:

Tech > Truth. Speed is fine. Don't drop links. Run whatever you what--if it's done well you'll win. All my thoughts on traditional LD apply to PF.

I have a fairly brief background in PF, but it has been quite a few years since I last participated so please make sure to define your jargon, and please do not spread because I won't understand you. I will dock you speaker points if you are disrespectful or talking over anyone in cross (even if both sides are doing it.) Lastly, please use evidence to substantiate your claims. If you make a claim about something that isn't intuitive and doesn't have a source, I won't count that argument.

Bro. Stephen Balletta's Judging Paradigm

I believe that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, argumentation, and clear communication.  This general statement applies to all the various branches of high-school debate (Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, etc.) in which one can participate, at least in my view.  I want to hear the debaters think on their feet, and I want to hear every word that each debater says.  Therefore, I do not look favorably on speed reading, spread debating, or esoteric arguments that try to short-circuit the resolution.  I have a rather limited tolerance for jargon.  In my view, a few strong arguments defended well outweigh a mound of argumentation and evidence rattled off so quickly that one cannot be reasonably expected to hear and digest it all, let alone refute it.

In my view, a good debate should be a respectful exchange of ideas, delivered at a pace so that a reasonably well-educated judge -- even a first-time judge -- should be able to weigh the arguments presented and determine a winner.  In line with this overall principle, I do not look favorably on a hostile, rude, or supercilious attitude on the part of the debaters.

Speak clearly; argue intelligently; disagree agreeably; and persuade by a combination of evidence, reasoning, and analysis.  Debate is not a matter of game theory; it is not the realm of self-appointed specialists or elites.  A good debate should be accessible to a college-educated adult who is not among the elite or the initiated of the speech-and-debate world.

If you are familiar with the style of debate promoted by the Ronald Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series, then you will know exactly what I am looking for.

Thanks!

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

Please pre-flow before rounds!!!

Hey everyone, I’m Elliot. I debated with my sister Claire as part of College Prep BB. I'm a junior at Duke University and I coach for Durham Academy.

Add me to the chain: eb393@duke.edu

Remember to collapse well, extend your argument fully, and weigh! Good weighing fully compares the impact you are going for with your opponents impact, and tells me through what lens I should make my decision.

I prefer a substance debate with good clash. I am open to evaluating any kind of argument — however I reserve the right to intervene if debaters are reading arguments in an inaccessible manner. Don’t be mean or problematic please, it won’t go well for you.

Feel free to go fast if you want but you should definitely send a speech doc! I can listen to and understand speed but I much prefer to have a doc to make sure I don't miss anything when I flow. If your opponents call for evidence and you have a doc with all of your evidence, just send the whole doc, and send it as a Word doc or in the text of an email. Stop sending a google doc and deleting it after the round...Have all your evidence ready please. If you take a while to send evidence - you’ll lose speaker points and you are also giving your opponents a chance to steal prep.

I think that almost all structural violence framing needs to be in rebuttal or constructive. I wont evaluate a blip read in summary thats like "don't evaluate any other impacts bla bla bla." You can read new weighing in summary but if it's not in summary it shouldn't be in final, unless you are just tweaking implications of the same piece of weighing or making a backline to a new response from first final or second summary.

she/her

I did PF for four years, and I'm currently a college senior but haven't done debate since high school.

I flow, I can handle speed, and I'll listen to anything as long as it's not offensive or violent. I think the best arguments are the ones that are accessible, extended through the round, and weighed. I think a lot of rounds come down to the impacts, so it's best to do the work to explain to me how they should inform my decision.

Hoping everyone a fun and safe tournament!

Experience: I'm a student at Yale who did LD for 4 years in high school. I primarily competed on the local level, and at a few circuit tournaments. I also have competed in Public Forum for a year. I have judged several rounds on my local circuit in Florida, and at the 2022 Yale Invitational.

PF/Parli Paradigm:

Speed: Keep it reasonable. Decently faster than conversational speed is ok, but everything should be clear.

Weighing: Do it, especially at the end. I don't like voting on things you decline to mention in the final speeches.

Speaks: I generally start at a 28.3. If it’s a notably messy win, it could go low as a 27/27.5. If you do a really solid job with weighing and speaking overall, you can easily get a 29. A 30 is generally reserved for rounds that are incredibly memorable in their quality. If you make me laugh, you get +0.25-0.5.

Brand new arguments in final speeches will be ignored and ding your speaks.

Be kind to your opponent. We can all tell when you are not.

Do not run racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. arguments.

LD Paradigm:

Arguments I like: Unless otherwise mentioned in my next section, I’m fine with pretty much any arguments you want to run. I’m most familiar with Policy, CPs, DAs, and more traditional arguments, but have also run Phil, Ks and theory in several rounds. Just make sure you explain your points clearly, and extend your arguments across speeches. Be sure to collapse and weigh in your last speech.

I don’t like: Blippy arguments and tricks. Dense arguments that neither I nor your opponent understands due to your intentional obfuscation. Being mean to your opponent (e.g. rudeness, or spreading out an obvious novice) will likely result in a low speak win at best. Clearly racist, xenophobic, etc. arguments will be a loss. Meme cases are allowed, but my threshold for your opponent responding to them is fairly low, unless both debaters decide to run meme cases.

Speed: I’m pretty comfortable with speed for all but the fastest debaters IRL. If the debate is on zoom, you might want to consider some combination of speaking slower than normal, signposting well, or sending the doc. If your internet is questionable at times, I strongly encourage you to record with your phone.

Email Chain: talk to me before the round starts if you will be spreading.

Speaks: I generally average a 28.5. If it’s a notably messy win, it could go low as a 27/27.5. If you do a really solid job with weighing and speaking overall, you can easily get a 29. A 30 is generally reserved for rounds that are incredibly memorable in their quality. If you make me laugh, you get +0.2-0.5.

I am a current Yale University student, and four year Public Forum debater on the national circuit at Carrollton High School. I have extensive experience both participating and judging in Public Forum, as well as other events. I will flow the round, so please sign post. This will greatly benefit me in my ability to follow your arguments, and ensure that I catch everything. If you are going to provide an observation or framework, do not simply tell me to weigh in that manner, explain why I should. Extensions through all speeches are a must if you are going to pick up my ballot. Do not turn a crossfire into a speech. I do not flow crossfire, but it is still a valuable time for the debater to find holes in their opponent's cases. Ensure that you are telling me why you are winning the round, simply reading a card does nothing for the judge, nor for the educational purposes of the round.

Speed becomes an issue when you are not clearly articulating your arguments. Clarity in round is key, and I would prefer to hear a single clear and well explained response over several poorly articulated ones. If I can't understand you, it will not go on the flow. When making my final decision, I take into account; first if an argument was extended throughout the round, then I examine the responses to each argument.

It is most important to consider that debate is intended to be an educational experience. With that being said, I will not tolerate any facetious or degrading remarks in round, as they are counter intuitive to the purpose of the event. As a result, such behavior will be reflected in the speaker points given.

I will expect you to ask questions prior to the round about anything that seems unclear in this paradigm.

Hey! I'm Dinesh Bojja (he/him). I've done 4 years of PF debate on the Ohio Circuit for Dublin Jerome High School (2018-2022). I'm currently a freshman at Yale. For my circuit, I'd say I'm p flay. I've competed Nat Circ at NSDA 2022, so I'm probably more flay than tech for people at this tourney. Here's the important stuff:

Speed: I'm okay with some speed (200 wpm is fine, 250 wpm is probs pushing it), but if you spread don't expect me to catch anything you're saying. I'd say clarity comes before speed, so just make sure that I can understand you. If I stop flowing, that probably means it's unintelligible to me.

Weighing: Any weighing metrics not mentioned in summary won't be counted in my decision.

Evidence: Warranting and logic >> Evidence. You can't back up bad arguments with just a card. Each card/response/warrant has to be implicated with reason as well as ev. If your opponent asks you something about your evidence, you better know the answer.

Theory, Ks: Don't do it (keep in mind I'm from the middle of Ohio).

Misc:

- Definitely collapse.

- Signpost all of your responses, number them and tell me what specifically you are responding to. If you don't do that, I might not catch it, and that would majorly suck.

- Make sure you extend everything through summary; if you don't say it in summary then it doesn't matter. And that doesn't mean just saying the tagline of your argument, you have to extend the actual argument itself and the warranting.

- If you're going to provide a framework, extend it throughout summary. If your opponent provides a framework, unless you provide a reason why we shouldn't use their framework (or one of your own), I'll vote using their framework.

- Don't be rude in round (even in CX). Like c'mon, it's a high school debate tournament.

Direct questions to dinesh.bojja@yale.edu, though I may be late in responding. Good luck!

I'm Anna (she/her). I’m a sophmore at Brown University. I coach PF for Durham where I debated from 2018-2021.

Add me to the chain: anna.brent-levenstein@da.org

TLDR:

At the end of the day, I’ll vote off the flow. Read whatever arguments, weighing, framework etc. you want. That being said, I don’t like blippy debate. Don’t skimp on warranting. If your argument doesn’t have a warrant the first time it’s read, I won’t vote off of it. I am especially persuaded by teams that have a strong narrative in the back half or a clear offensive strategy.

Specifics:

1. I always look to weighing first when I make a decision. If you are winning weighing on an argument and offense off of it, you have my ballot. That said, it must be actual comparative, well-warranted weighing not just a collection of buzzwords(e.g. we outweigh on probability because our argument is more probable is not weighing). Prereqs, link ins, short circuits etc. are the best pieces of weighing you can read.

2. Collapse and extend. I'm not voting off of a 5 sec extension of a half fleshed out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than 5 arguments poorly.

3. Implicate defense, especially in the back half. If it is terminal, tell me that. If it mitigates offense so much that their impacts aren't weighable, tell me that. Otherwise, I'm going to be more likely to vote on risk of offense arguments. Impact out and weigh turns.

4. I will evaluate theory/Ks/progressive args. When reading Ks, please make my role as a judge/the ROB as explicit as possible. Additionally, please know the literature well and explain your authors' positions as thoroughly and accessibly as possible. I see theory as a way to check back against serious abuse and/or protect safety in rounds. I will evaluate paraphrase and disclosure theory but find that the debates are generally boring so I won't be thrilled watching them.

I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. Respect your opponents and their pronouns.

Finally, I really appreciate humor and wit. Making me laugh or smile will give you a really good chance at high speaker points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round. I will disclose and give feedback after the round.

In all types of debate, keep in mind: QUANTITY IS NOT QUALITY. Don't try to win by simply overwhelming your opponent(s) with arguments. Gish gallops will not work with me, so don't try them.

I am an old-school LD judge. I want to see a clear values clash and hear some philosophy, not just a long list of cards. Cases that are not grounded in ethical theory will have a harder time winning me over. Kritik cases are fine so long as they are not abusive -- that is, so long as they leave the opposition some ground from which to argue. A kritik of the resolution is fine, but generic kritiks that could be run against any case / resolution are not.Also, any out-of-round kritiks just aren't going to work with me. These almost always revolve around claims that I have no way to verify, or debaters essentially making up rules that they they then accuse their opponents of breaking.

I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading in LD. I believe that it is the bane of the event. Certainly it is an excuse to toss out a lot of abusive one-way hash arguments. Anything much faster than a typical conversational pace is likely to cause me to stop flowing your case. Make your point with QUALITY, not quantity.

Please do NOT offer to send me your case. If I cannot follow your case AS YOU PRESENT IT IN THE ROUND, you are NOT communicating it clearly enough.

Tech cases are unlikely to impress me. Win with strong arguments, not technicalities.

Semantic arguments are fine, but keep them on point; don't descend into trivialities.

In Public Forum, I am similarly NOT a fan of "progressive" debate. This is PUBLIC forum, so make arguments that could impress any reasonably well-informed and attentive audience, not just judges who know all of technical debate language. Make reasonable claims which clearly support your side of the resolution, support them with significant and relevant evidence, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents', tell me why your evidence is superior to theirs, tell me why your claims lead to me voting for your side of the resolution.

I have been judging PF for four years and am now judging LD. I flow to capture and compare both arguments. I appreciate the value of speaking quickly, but also ask that competitors don't speak so fast, I can't understand them. Respect for other debaters during and after the rounds is very important. Be assertive, certainly, but rudeness is unnecessary. I appreciate debaters who have clearly prepared well and researched their topic sufficiently to be able to address unexpected ideas or approaches to a topic. I have a great deal of respect for the amount of time and effort that goes into researching and preparing for debate. Please bear in mind that I don't do this every day as you do, and may not follow all of the debate jargon and strategy ideologies, but I will always judge to the best of my ability.

This is my first time judge. And I'm a lay judge so please keep your delivery slow and clear. I heavily value clarity in speech and arguments. I will not tolerate any kind of discrimination; racism, sexism, etc. I would like both debaters to please be respectful to one another during each round. I will listen carefully to your arguments and keep my own opinions out of the detabe. I can not judge fast rounds when I don't understand or comprehend what you are saying. Too much jargon will only confuse me so keep it clear and simple. 

he/him.

I debated for Strake Jesuit for four years in Public forum and graduated in 2020. I am a senior at Georgetown University studying Science, Technology, and International Affairs. I won TFA State my senior year, and I qualified to the Gold TOC my senior year with bids from Glenbrooks and Grapevine.

Bold is the most important stuff, but everything else is still important.

email is cooper.carlile@gmail.com and you can facebook message me

Tell me what the structure of the speech is beforehand.

Please extend warrants. If you don't extend warrants, I will be hesitant to vote for you. I do not think you can properly extend and warrant an extinction scenario, for example, in 15 seconds. You need to extend the warrants of your whole link story and impact scenario. My threshold for extensions is high, and my threshold for responses to improperly extended offense is low.

It has been a while since I have judged/flowed. Anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech docotherwise I probably wont catch everything especially if i'm unfamiliar with the topic, and its fair to the other team. if you PF spread and don't send a doc I will find that very irritating.

Debate is a game so I will evaluate any argument that you read.

I am TECH + TRUTH (on substance specifically). You should generally treat me as a tech judge though. I say tech + truth because my threshold for late responses to conceded arguments is very high, but I will evaluate them. My threshold for responses to arguments that I think are patently false is very low, but I will still evaluate those arguments. I think the best arguments are true arguments, since they are the easiest to defend and explain and justify a decision for. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded. You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

Theory is good and I like it. Frivolous theory sucks and I hate it. Theory is good because debaters should be held accountable for bad practices. Stuff like "must respond in second constructive" makes me want to find the nearest brick wall and try to dent it with my head. I will still evaluate it, but it would not bode well for you. You can make reasonability or competing interpretations arguments in front of me to respond to Theory and I'll be receptive to either as long as they are effectively warranted. Because it is PF, and it is much harder to read/respond to progressive arguments effectively in general, I will vote on an RVI if they win that their model of debate is better, not if they just beat back the shell.

Kritiks are super cool but difficult to pull off in PF due to time constraints. I have limited experience writing and evaluating Kritiks, but I will evaluate them to the best of my ability if they are read in front of me. My eval of a Topical K will probably be more accurate than a non-T K.

Fastest way to lose a round in front of me is to read tricks.

I determine speaks based on strategy, and only somewhat on speaking ability. I think that persuasion is a key part of both lay and tech debate so I would like to see something other than a monotone presentation.

You should be able to pull up called-for evidence very quickly. I will find it very weird if you can't.

Please for the love of god signpost PLEASE

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" also dont read defense on ur own case

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too. probably not on a panel tho

if im vibing with an arg then you'll probably be able to tell. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

I will disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians on big stage."

Have fun!

email chain - please start one and use it: darren.ch12@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com. reach out for questions/anything to make the debate more accessible. strongly prefer no speechdrop

asst coach for the Blake School (MN) for 3 seasons but don't actively coach => slower pen speed + less/no topic research

cornell '21 - qualified to the ndt if that means anything

carmel (IN) '17 - local circuit pf/policy so always a soft spot

excited to watch you debate!

tl;dr: I can keep up with speed (re: policy), but I enjoy clear explanation more. Typically, tech over truth and flow-oriented. Will only intervene if I have to. Do what you would like but don't be exclusionary. I think judges should adapt to the debaters, not the other way around.

top level/all events:

---non-negotiable rules: one winner and one loser, fixed speech times, and equal distribution of speaking time among partners (unless someone is sick or has to leave the room). Won't vote on what happened before I hit start.

---don't be rude. love sass, but don't ridicule others

---strike me if you are going to engage in sexually explicit performances

---I can be very facially expressive; don't mind me

---slow down for theory

---I know nothing about your rep. I only debated for schools that had 0 rep (and 0-1 coaches). This doesn't make me pull for either the small school or the big school. Arguments are what matter.

---don't steal prep (calling for cards doesn't require speaking to your partner). I do my best to time it. Decision clock is ticking.

---don't clip. L25s if you do. Misrepresentations don't stop a round, but that evidence/card won't count. Fabrication stops a round. Will defer to tournament rules/tab. I dislike evidence that's written by debaters/coaches about debate.

---number and label arguments (turn, non-unique, etc.)

---presumption flows the way of less change from the status quo (but debatable)

---if you want me to catch something in CX, say it in a speech. I'm usually writing comments/reading ev although I'm listening.

---reducing something to 0 risk is possible but very hard. I wouldn't vote NEG if the 2NR/FF was ONLY case defense.

---line by line > cloud/implicit/overview clash. Won't do work for you.

public forum:

---I only flow off what I hear. I do not read speech docs (of analytics) during the speech or after the round. I will ONLY read evidence. Don't spread what you paraphrase because it's usually incomprehensible.

---care a lot about impact calc (no really -- I care a lot). I will always look at frameworks first. Answer turns case/pre-req arguments!

---persuasive skills influence the flow (organization, delivery, flowability). I don't care what you wear, etc.

---arguments in the FF should be in the summary. Obvious implication/spin isn't new. No sticky defense. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; otherwise, it's conceded.

---to kick a contention, you need to concede a specific piece(s) of defense. Or the other team could still get turns since not all defense gets you out of all offense.

---provide evidence in under two minutes or it's an analytic. Evidence should have full citations, not just a url. Cards > paraphrasing. PF ev often stinks, but it sometimes doesn't come down to quality only. If you strike a card from the flow, that's not reversible even if you find the evidence later.

---amenable to arguments that the AFF doesn't have to defend the entirety of the resolution in every instance.

---strike me if you're debating for a social experiment/reading a meme case.

---pet peeves: 1) "time starts [on my first word/now]" 2) not timing your prep/cross 3) asking questions about a judge's paradigm during the round 4) debater math 5) kicking community judges on a panel.

---will evaluate all arguments, including theory or a K. Tell me if I need another sheet of paper. See below in policy section. If you aren't comfortable going for theory/K's, don't do it just because I'm judging. Comfortable voting on disclosure. I think the wiki is good. So does Blake.

---theory thoughts:

I don't think debaters need to discuss most (or perhaps any) of the following to have a (good) theory debate. All of the following are negotiable. But it may be useful to know my preferences - loosely based on Nina Potischman and Nate Odenkirk'sarticle from VBI in 2021.

1) default to text of interp and competing interps > reasonability where the standard is gut-checking the interp for in-round abuse. Explaining your standard for reasonability (if you have one) is helpful. Counter-interps do not require an explicit text, especially in PF, where there is no expectation to know the terminology. CX is a great time to ask (the other team, not me). Teams answering theory should forward their view of debate. I am willing to accept spirit of the counter-interp if a counter-interp text is not read.

2) theory experience: witnessed (judged and competed in) more theory debates than I have fingers. "Have you won a 1AR in circuit LD/policy?" No, because I was a 2A. In the 2AR, I have gone for (and won and lost) theory such as PICs bad, condo, PIKs bad, and 50 states fiat bad.

3) terminal defense is sufficient under competing interps. Presumption would flip. I would prefer offense.

4) start theory ASAP, e.g., as soon as the violation happens

5) willing to listen to a RVI in PF/LD because of speech times that could mean skews. Default to no RVIs.

6) "theory without voters?" If the voters are made on the standards debate, that's fine. If there's no voters at all, the team answering theory should say so and then there was no impact to theory.

7) will intervene against shoes theory/anything that approaches that threshold

12/24/24 - typos + don't actively coach anymore

As a parent PF judge, I understand the unique dynamics and challenges of adjudicating Public Forum (PF) debate rounds involving young debaters. My role is to ensure a fair and educational experience for all participants while prioritizing respectful discourse and critical thinking skills development. Below are the guidelines I follow and the expectations I have for debaters in my rounds.

Guidelines:

1. Fairness: Fairness is paramount. I expect debaters to engage in honest argumentation and to refrain from any form of cheating or unfair practices, such as misrepresentation of evidence or spreading misinformation.

2. Respect: Respect for opponents, judges, and the debate space is non-negotiable. I expect debaters to maintain a civil tone throughout the round, avoiding personal attacks or disrespectful language.

3. Clarity: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should articulate their arguments logically and concisely, making it easy for judges to follow their line of reasoning.

4. Evidence: Debaters should provide credible evidence to support their claims. I encourage debaters to cite reputable sources and to analyze the evidence effectively within the context of the debate.

5. Time Management: Debaters must manage their time effectively, ensuring that they use their allotted speaking time efficiently and allowing their opponents equal opportunity to present their arguments.

6. Adaptability: I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies and arguments based on their opponents' responses and the flow of the debate round.

7. Engagement: Active engagement with the substance of the resolution is key. Debaters should address the central issues of the debate and respond directly to their opponents' arguments.

8. Sportsmanship: Debaters should display good sportsmanship at all times, accepting defeat gracefully and congratulating their opponents on a well-debated round.

I'm a college student with high school debate experience in PF and Congress. (I was told by my former coach to add that I am a 4-time national qualifier and 2-time national semifinalist in Congress)

To put it simply, treat me as a lay judge. I believe that the way you present your arguments is just as important as what you are arguing. I weigh style and arguments equally.

Do not speed. I will deduct points for ad hominem attacks, condescension, and rudeness. I will not rule for anything blatantly offensive or oppressive, and I have a bias towards utilitarian and egalitarian arguments and real-world impacts.

Decision basis:

• well spoken arguments
• only evidence carried from start to finish will be taking into consideration (no new evidence in final focus)
• will not take crossfire info into consideration

Other Notes:

• don't worry about how fast your speaking as long as it's articulate
• will flow during speeches
• be civil; keep it relevant to the topic

Hi. My name is Michael Chu and I am currently a junior at Yale studying computer science. I debated in high school, and enjoyed it as an activity. I hope everyone has fun!

I did two years of Public Forum at Byram Hills and two at Lincoln Sudbury High School.

General Ideas

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in second rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

Overall, I was not super experienced in a lot of aspects of tech debate. I think I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. Do with that what you will. I'd say generally don't change your style of debate for me, but be conscious that I might not be on the same page as you if you're being a big tech boi.

I don't know as much as I probably should about theory and K debating. I'm open to voting on them, but I'll let you know right now that I am not super informed and you'd have to explain it to me like I'm a dummy.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Add dcigale01@gmail.com and planowestdocs@googlegroups.com to email chains.

For public forum, please speak slowly and clearly. I prefer well-structured arguments with fewer sources of evidence as opposed to an overwhelming number of sources that are not clearly linked to your argument. As you present your case, define terms and abbreviations as if the audience has little to no background in this area. The final focus, closing argument, is important as I develop the Reason for my Decision.

Meghan Clark (she/her)

Experience:

–competed in LD on the Texas UIL circuit

–coached LD for 7 years, policy for 5, also on the Texas UIL circuit

–currently coach extemp/platform events at Plano West

LD & PF:

--I am a fairly typical flay judge.

--Truth over tech. I do not particularly like kritiks or other non-resolution based arguments (not a huge fan of progressive debate). Don’t run theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, etc. - I have zero interest in judging this. I strongly dislike frivolous theory arguments and tricks. Don’t run them.

--Make sure that you extend your arguments and signpost clearly. No sticky defense.

--I care a good deal about weighing impacts in the back half of the round. Make sure you do this. Don’t introduce new arguments in the second half of the round, and I don’t want arguments that consist of three blippy arguments with buzzwords. I would vastly prefer substantive weighing of impacts. I generally default to probability over magnitude.

--I care about quality rather than quantity of evidence. You must have clear taglines for your evidence. Don’t paraphrase.

--Make sure you are courteous to opponents and don’t speak over them during crossfire or cross-examination in LD. I expect professionalism, respect and civility towards me and towards your opponents. If you are verbally or non-verbally showing disrespect towards your opponents or me, expect to lose speaker points. It goes without saying that you should not be racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/etc. in any way during the round.

--I do not like spreading. Debate should be accessible to a wide audience, and spreading makes that difficult. Speak at a normal rate of speed if you expect me to flow your argument. Extreme speed will most likely result in lower speaks. If I call “clear,” slow down.

--In final focus or the 2AR in LD, make the case for why you deserve my vote - don’t demand my vote.

--Strike me if you’re reading a meme or social experiment case.

--PF specific: Stick to the time structure - no skipping grand cross.

--If a card is heavily disputed during round, I will call for it.

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

I am a judge with eleven years of experience in Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, and Parliamentary Debate.

I am a flow judge that values precision of thought, argument structure, and word choice. I welcome authoritative sourcing in support of arguments but never an appeal to authority. I understand the tactical reason for speed but prefer to be convinced by the strength of the argument and the rhetorical elegance of the presentation.

As a teacher of history that thrives on disputation, I require a clash of ideas. I am philosophically fond the counterpunch and find a “turn” often to be the highlight of a debate. Find the flaw in your opponent’s argument and exploit it to your advantage.

In Public Forum and LD:

During cross, strive for a balance between contention and civility.

In Congress and Parliamentary Debate:

Regardless of the prep time, demonstrate a certain depth and breadth of content knowledge related to the bill or motion. Reasoned argument on behalf of the commonweal is preferred over moral preference and preening.

Disclosure (if permitted by tournament rules) is not a time for discussion or appeal.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Hey y'all. I'm Danielle (she/her). I'm a first-year out who primarily competed/coached PF at a small public HS in NJ (Freehold Township), but I had a couple of WSD stints with my state's team from 2019-2022. 

TLDR: Run whatever you want, but I shouldn't have to do mental gymnastics to vote for you. Collapse in the later speeches, be organized, weigh, have a clear narrative, and don't be insufferable in the process. 

I'm willing to evaluate whatever you want me to, but I mostly have experience with trad debate.

Speed is fine as long as you slow down on the taglines and send a speech doc.

I don't tolerate toxic energy in the debate space. If you're being exclusionary or problematic, I'll drop you no matter what. 

More niche preferences: 

I'm not the biggest evidence ethics purist. I'm fine with paraphrasing as long as it doesn't completely deviate from the article's original intent. 

I don't care too much about extending card names as much as I care about you extending the analysis. I'd much rather see a detailed, implicated, analytical response than hear "Extend the Smith'17 card." 

If you're mavving, I'll give you 5 mins of prep.

Shadow Extensions aren't real

I don't care what happens in cross. If you want it to impact my ballot, extend it into a real speech. 

Best of luck! I know these tournaments can be super stressful, but please remember to drink water, eat, and have fun. :)

I did public forum and parliamentary debate in high school. I like all arguments and can follow along with fast speaking, but try to stay organized with lots of signposting. Also, don't be rude to your opponents.

Speak slowly and clearly so I can process your arguments. I am a lay judge who employs simplified flow techniques.

I am judging who most effectively displays solid logic, lucid reasoning, and in-depth analysis. Your reasoning should be supported by credible evidence, however evidence does not replace an effective argument. You should address all of your opponents arguments, even if you don't focus on them during Summary or Final Focus.

You will lose speaker points if you try to talk over your opponent during crossfire. Civility matters.

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

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!

I have no formal debate experience so please avoid specific debate lingo that is unnecessary to your argument. I also would appreciate that you do not talk too quickly. This is not to say you should speak very slowly either; something at the pace of typical conversation is fine. That being said, I look forward to y'all's arguments!

TOC Update:I would urge everyone to read the new rule changes, specifically 1) the rule that says you are eligible to be forfeited if you are 1 minute late (I will enforce this), 2) that prep stealing basically isn't a thing (contrary to my paradigm)-- don't call excessive evidence, BUT you are allowed to prep while opponents are looking for ev/marking. Read TOC rules for full description, I can explain my enforcement more in-depth if you have questions.

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com. Also add it to any email chains.

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment). I also tend to think a lot-- I don't always vote on the path of least resistance, I vote on what's warranted, implicated and extended in the context of the round.

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science. Coached and judged since 2020 freelance, then Delbarton, and now as the Director of PF at Bronx Science. My day job is as an Economist for the federal government.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you slow down on taglines. Send a speech doc if you are going fast or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

Evidence

- DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad norms in this department. I also will evaluate para theory, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for it.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- You MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive).

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two well-resourced programs bashing each other over the head with theory and/or there was a serious violation, carry on.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

Ks

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

- "try or die" is not comparative weighing. I think it's a massive logical fallacy the debate community partakes in.

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently subjective and somewhat biased-- I will evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round (unless you have a legitimate reason/accessibility concern), 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

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

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

I am a lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Refrain from using jargon. I enjoy lively, spirited debate when participants support their arguments with evidence and persuasive claims. Make sure to weigh your arguments carefully. Tell me why your impacts are more important than those of your opponents. 

I am a current Yale University student, and while I participated in more informal styles of debate in high school, I am relatively new to Public Forum. As such, my knowledge of PF jargon is pretty limited, so keep that in mind if you ever reach out to me or have questions.

I appreciate arguments that are well-crafted and developed throughout debate, so extensions are highly encouraged. Additionally, I will flow the round, so please sign post when referring back to previous arguments.

While I will not flow crossfire, it is a critical element in my scoring, so in addition to pointing out flaws in your opponents’ cases, I appreciate questions that elevate your own arguments, as well. Please refer back to what was said in crossfire in a later speech. 

Speed is likely to be disadvantageous. I am far more likely to give my ballot to teams who clearly articulate their arguments in a succinct, well-communicable fashion rather than bombarding me with evidence. 

Above all else, this experience is meant to be a fun and educational experience for debaters and judges alike. Remain actively engaged, argue in an animated fashion, and fervently defend for your position, and it will be hard for me to vote against you.

email me for questions/add me to the chain: tara.gill.527@gmail.com

tl;dr:

Me: "Do you know why I'm such a laid-back judge?"

Y'all: "Why?"

Me: "I go with the flow"

(creds to @Debate Memes on Facebook haha)

• yes I will vote off the flow
• honestly just debate well enough to make me care enough about the round (which means focus on the bolded text below)
• warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh and you're doing really well
• I don't think most debaters truly spend time explaining warrants or weighing
• things you want me to vote on have to be in every speech after first rebuttal
• I want the round to be chill and educational and fun so please make that happen

quick disclaimers

i'm now old and grumpy and care a bit less about debate than i used to so please don't assume i have extensive topic knowledge

novices:

it's so cool that you're trying out this activity even though it's probably kind of scary. If you don't understand some of my preferences in the long version, the tl;dr should be fine. Just know that you're probably doing great and that you got this :)

feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round.

Longer Version:

hi! I did 2 years of Public Forum at Lexington but I started out my debate career in policy which influences how I judge!

- i'm more tech than the average tech judge so please clash to avoid judge intervention, or at the very least weigh a lot on both link and impact levels :)

- in later speeches, please give quick narrative style overviews at the top of your own case then frontline/line by line (i still don't know what frontline means but just don't drop stuff) if u want me to vote on your contentions otherwise dropped defense will mitigate your impacts. this also means u should frontline in second rebuttal and extend defense in first summary.

- i will vote off most arguments including theory/k if they are debated well (my threshold for these being run well is pretty high lmao so try at your risk) and not used just to be exclusionary (check the bottom of my paradigm)

- do a lot of weighing/impact calc and logical analysis (not just for me, it is also strategic if you're lost/confused and I would know first hand oops)

- once again please weigh weigh weigh. really make the force of gravity a lot here (i'm sorry i'm a physics nerd)

- start collapsing by first summary because depth>breadth in terms of giving quality arguments in short PF speech times

- crossfire shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating please ask and answer questions in a non-aggressive and CIVIL manner or I will be frustrated, get a headache and probably dock speaks.

- if you want to take off a jacket or shoes in round feel free to do so because i almost never debated with shoes. this will not affect speaks or the result :)

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused, I will not dock speaks and I feel like it usually helps you learn how you can improve in the future

- i am fine w speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, make sure your opponents are ok too, slow down on tags, authors, and analytics, signpost clearly, offer speech docs if necessary

- lastly, debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary, follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you, and HAVE FUN!!!!!

Extra:

- fist-bump instead of shaking hands haha

- I'll default to a slightly above a 28 if it's by 0.1 and 28.5 if it's by 0.5

- i am also happy to talk after round, show you my flows, and answer questions about either debate or life :)

LD (MSDL States 2024):

i am fairly confident in my ability to flow a debate and understand arguments that are clearly explained to me, however, I also understand there are certain thing specific to LD that I am not familiar with.

• focus on weighing your arguments against your components, basic frameworks (util, structural violence) I am familiar with and are good for providing that comparison
• not sure about other "value criterion" that's a term i've heard but i don't know what that means so just explain to me clearly
• not super used to nat circuit LD speed anymore, but a little speed is fine
• rest of the paradigm applies

I am a parent of a JV debater. I have been a criminal defense attorney for 20 years. I am most interested in seeing good organization, but also respect towards opponents. Both of these qualities are essential, in my opinion, to being persuasive.

Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '25 (econ/math).

I've worked for: Madison West, Vel Phillips Memorial, Strath Haven, Palo Alto, JR Masterman

VARSITY PF:

TL;DR: I was a circuit debater in high school, but I haven't debated for 3 years. I broke at TOC Gold my senior year, so can evaluate a tech round easily. However, I find that teams have the most success with me when they lean slightly more flay than they would with an average tech judge. Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well. Proud hack for evidence ethics. Below are some areas where I may deviate from circuit norms.

- Fairness > Education > Winning. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- If you're a small school and you're up against a team from a big prep school, I am a judge you want. I debated a lot on the national circuit, but I went to a public school that barely funds its debate program. Unlike a lot of judges who consider themselves "flow," I don't care if you use the same useless circuit buzzwords I use and I'm really not impressed by people that read 5 poorly warranted turns in rebuttal that one of their 15 coaches wrote for them in a prepout.

- If you go to a privileged school, are facing an underprivileged school, and spend the round commodifying the issues of underprivileged schools in an unnuanced disclosure/paraphrasing shell, your speaks will be capped at a 26 and I will be very tempted to drop you for it. If your entire strategy for winning rounds is to weigh extinction impacts over everything else, your speaks will be capped at a 28.5 unless you present some type of interesting nuance in the weighing debate.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory, and I am much less receptive to theory at local circuit tournaments. Not only can local circuits make rules about disclosure or paraphrasing; individual schools generally have the credibility to introduce such rules at summer coaches' meetings. Local circuit teams running theory need to explain why the round is uniquely better than those meetings to adjudicate what the norms and/or rules of this activity should be.

- I won't flow you off a doc.

- Weighing should be done early.

- Collapse early. To that end, don't read a whole new contention in rebuttal for no reason.

- "If you pronounce “Reuters” as 'rooters' or "nuclear" as 'nook-you-ler' I will be sad." –Sorin Caldararu, my brilliant debate partner.

- I'm a pretty liberal guy but I'm not a big fan of teams who run random leftist academic theory for a ballot.

---

JV/Novice/Middle School Paradigm:

- There are essentially three parts of debating: making arguments, responding to arguments, and weighing arguments (i.e. comparing your arguments and with those of your opponent). Ideally, you should start by mostly making arguments, and by the end you should mostly be weighing arguments that have already been made. You can make that very clear to me by saying things like "now I'm going to respond to my opponent's argument about ______."

- An argument usually has to involve saying something will cause something else. Say we're debating whether the government should create a single-payer healthcare system. If you are on the aff, saying "healthcare is a right" isn't really an argument. Rather, it's a catchphrase that hints at a different argument: by making healthcare single-payer, the cost doesn't change whether you go to the doctor or not, making people more likely to get care that improves their quality of life and could even save lives. The difference between the first argument and the second is pretty subtle, but it's important for me as a judge: saying "healthcare is a right" doesn't tell me how single-payer gets people healthcare, and it also doesn't tell me who I'm actually helping by voting in favor of single-payer. The second argument answers those questions and puts those answers front and center. And that makes it much easier for me, as a judge, to vote for you.

- To that end, I'm not a fan of new arguments in late speeches. It makes the debate feel like whack-a-mole: a team makes one argument, but once it's rebutted, they present another argument, which then gets rebutted, and so on.

- Generally, I find logic to be more compelling than moral grandstanding. For example, if we're debating if it should be legal to feed kids McDonalds and you argue that it shouldn't because McDonalds is unhealthy, it doesn't help to say stuff like "they're basically stepping over the bodies of dead children" in a speech. It sounds like overkill and makes me not want to vote for you as much.

- Tell me your favorite animal to show me you've read this for an extra speaker point. The WDCA hates fun, so I sadly cannot give you your extra speaker point if you are in Wisconsin. I also won't give you an extra point in varsity because I feel like that's unfair.

---

Policy/LD: If I am judging you in policy or LD, I might have a slight bias towards a more PF style of debate. Read my PF paradigm since most things will apply. I find the ideas and concepts in policy and LD interesting and worthwhile even though I'm not inclined to participate in those styles of debate. Just keep it under 300wpm, use PF-level lingo, and keep in mind I can sort of flow spreading but I can't flow it as well as an actual policy or LD debater. I'm probably more down for progressive debate than most PF judges, especially in those events. I know I can be a hard judge to adapt to for circuit policy and LD, so I'll cut you some slack with speed and clear you like 10 times before I stop trying to flow.

---

BQ:

I judge BQ exactly like I judge PF, but obviously framework matters more because it's philosophy. Just read the PF section. It all applies.

Sunvite 2025: *have very little topic knowledge about Somaliland take it easy on me*

Hello! I’m a third-year out, debated in PF for Ransom Everglades for 3 years on the nat circuit. Now I coach and do parli in college. (If you're a senior and going to college in the Northeast ask me about parli!)

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round or you have any questions about anything after the round, reach out on Messenger (Cecilia Granda-Scott) or email me.

PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is cecidebate@gmail.com for the chain.

my face is very expressive – i do think that if i make a face you should consider that in how you move forward

Safety > everything else. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings are bad.

If you say “time will begin on my first word, time begins in 3-2-1, time will start now, first an off-time roadmap” I will internally cry. And then I will think about the fact that you didn’t read or listen to my paradigm, which will probably make me miss the first 7 seconds of your speech.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, please go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 230-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I hate reading docs and tbh would vastly prefer to have a non-doc round but I have come to understand that nobody listens when I say this so send me the doc I suppose. Also: I promise that my comprehension really is slower than people think it is so stay safe and send it

signpost signpost signpost

"The flow is a toolbox not a map" is the best piece of debate knowledge I ever learned and I think PF has largely lost backhalf strategy recently so if you do interesting smart things I will reward you

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). Everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments. aka - i'm not going to evaluate "oh well i don't know how to respond to this". it's okay if you haven't learned prog and don't know how to respond, i don't need super formal responses, just try to make logical analysis; but i'm not going to punish the team who initiated a prog argument because of YOUR lack of knowledge (if you would like to learn about theory, you can ask me after the round I also went to a traditional school and had to teach myself)

I dislike reading friv prog on novices or to get out of debating SV. just be good at debate and beat your opponents lol

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms (I actually won 3 disclosure rounds my senior year before we got lazy and didn’t want to have more theory rounds). So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. I won’t vote for:

• first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid

• Round reports, I think this new norm is wild and silly

I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, now have coached/judged several more, but not super well versed in literature (unless its fem). Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:

• Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.

• If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.

when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you miscontrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

Frameworks:

• You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.

• I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round

• Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.

• I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EXTINCTION FRAMING AS PREFIAT OFFENSE.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

• I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.

• My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.

• If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

Debated pf in high school, haven't judged in a few years. will flow, don't know anything about the topic. Will give RFD. 

1. I debated in PF for two and half years and stopped mostly because I didn't enjoy remote debate. I will flow the round. 
2. I generally am more sympathetic to arguments that I can easily believe are plausible. I would still say I am "tech over truth," but I have a low bar for responses to absurd or contrived arguments.
3. While personal respect and civility is important, I also enjoy energetic, enthusiastic crossfires. When you're spending a full day judging, it can liven things up and keep the judge engaged. I won't flow or listen that closely to crossfire, and will probably use the time to work on my decision (unless it's really fun)
4. please make sure to collapse - in most rounds, you should be going for 1 (or maybe 2) warrants and impacts by your summary.
5. I am probably not the right judge for theory. If I find a team is being offensive or incorporating deeply problematic assumptions into their arguments, I will take that into account myself. That being said, you should always use your own judgement. 
6. Please feel free to ask as many additional questions as you would like at the start of the round. Hope this round is a fun one!

Parent judge with 4 years of experience, I do flow the entire round.

If possible, please make it easy for me, collapse or go for a very well explained turn.

I am not a a pro and wont necessarily understand all the jargon and nuance.

My prefs:

1. yes - signpost; off-time roadmaps, extending from SUM to FF;

2. warrants > blips = I will have a hard time voting for poorly explained arguments;

3. no - spreading, anything new in 2nd SUM or FF;

4. Happy to skip grand-X if you are...

5. If K and Theory is read, I will do my best, but no promises that I will do a good job of it.. so swim at your own risk.

you can add me to email chains and case - viettagrinberg@gmail.com

Hi, My name is Ryan.

I'm currently a junior at Yale where I compete in British Parliamentary debate. In high school, I did 4 years of Public Forum with Fairmont Prep. I qualified to the ToC 4 times and made elimination rounds twice. Two general thoughts:

1 - I prefer you debate to win but do so jovially (when possible) and kindly (always).

2 - I prefer you approach debate with the intent of proving your arguments. I was once tech > truth, but more and more I find my ballots beginning with "I believe... x." If I do not believe your argument, I probably won't vote for it.

There are a few strategies that help with the latter: shorter (700 word) stock cases that leverage nuanced links, modest (honest) impacts, and extending one (1) piece of offense in the FF. Also, actor analysis, consistent exploration of why things might happen, and poignant cross-fires. Something that doesn't help: more words said more quickly.

Re: theory/k's, it's likely an uphill battle. I don't believe in paraphrasing theory or disclosure theory. I don't think PF is built for K's. If you do read theory: (1) I don't require specific structures of response, and (2) I ask you collapse on it. I don't evaluate "no RVI's," and if your FF is not solely concerned with your shell (if you continue to debate substance elsewhere), I will not vote for your shell.

Feel free to ask any debate related questions at ryan.gumlia@yale.edu. (Though, please do not add me to email chains. I'll let you know at the end of the round if I would like to have one forwarded. I don't do this unless I am explicitly asked to read a card.)

Read Keith Macias's paradigm - I agree with him

I would generally consider myself tech over truth, but I will be at least somewhat upset if you say crazy stuff. I will flow your arguments, but how you speak (mainly, do I believe you are telling me facts that are both true and that you understand) will of course influence how I translate that flow into a decision.

I may call for sources even if they were not disputed, this is more out of interest than any attempt at intervention. If you believe your opponent does not understand the sources they are using, call them out on it, perhaps bring it to my attention: try to make truth your tech.

Regarding prep time: I will not run the timer for calling for sources / reading them. If it makes for a better debate round, I am willing to be further lose with time.

Be eloquent - make me care and I will.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

(2025 Update: pls make it fun and entertaining, also rusty with flowing)

Background: I completed in PF for 6-7 years, won multiple awards, and judged a few tournaments. I have also done mock trial at the college and high school level.

I will not evaluate any Ks, theories, or other forms of technical arguments. I don’t believe they are suitable for PF.

Make the fact that you are winning very clear to me by weighing BOTH links and impacts and doing extra analysis with NUANCE. Your analysis should not only be on the argument “tag” level but also on the evidence level; explain to me why I should prefer your evidence. When the two sides give me polar opposite evidence without extra analysis, it’s hard for me to evaluate the clash.

carded warrant > uncarded warrant > carded unwarranted empirics. Please don’t card dump. Numbers don’t matter unless there are clear links that connect them back to your arguments.

Please refer to evidence at least by last name and year.

Speed: Anything slower than spreading should be fine. If you are speaking too quickly for me to flow (which is rare), I’ll let you know.

Framework is fine but sometimes a waste of time unless you explain to me why your framework is so justifiably different from a line-by-line analysis.

I do not flow CX and will only consider an argument if you bring it up in a speech, not CX. CX is for your benefit to clarify arguments and evidence, not to gain an edge on your opponents.

I’m fine with roadmap but be concise.

Evidence check is encouraged; check as many cards as you want, but don’t intentionally delay things to buy yourself prep time. If things get malicious, I’ll deduct speaker points.

I’ll call for evidence if it’s important to my decision. Put me (carlguo866@gmail.com) on the email chain if you decide to create one.

I would take personal insults or any signs of racism, sexism, or homophobia into account and deduct your speaker points significantly.

Last but not least, have fun (the most important thing in a debate round)!

not charitable to pre-fiat impacts. please mind speed. treat me as lay. have fun!

I was a policy debater at Bronx Science in the 1980s and currently run the upper school public forum debate team at Nightingale Bamford. I flow and can handle speed, as long as it is clear. I listen to crossfire, but do not flow it. If there is something important said in CF that you need to win, please apply it during your next speech. No new arguments in summary or final focus, please. Also, it makes me a little crazy when people call for a million cards, and/or when a team takes 10 minutes to find evidence. You can be on the internet now and everyone is working off computers--there is really no reason on earth not to be able to provide your evidence if called for.

Lastly, and most importantly, I like debaters to clearly explain their arguments, and to weigh them. In a perfect round, debaters would be assertive but polite, enjoy themselves, and make it easy for me to know how to vote by weighing in the back end of the round. Overviews are find and can help frame things if there is something you want to emphasize, etc. Mostly just be clear and imagine what you would like to RFD to say....then say that ;-) Good luck and know how important this activity is and how much respect we judges have for you all. Best of luck.

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I have just finished debating APDA at Brown. After graduating, I will be coaching PF and Policy debate in Taiwan on a Fulbright. I just started a YouTube channel with PF debate lectures (https://www.youtube.com/@machays) - check it out if you're curious to know how I think. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* The single most important thing to me is that you do your best to make sure that your opponents understand you when you are speaking. If your opponents do not understand you and you do not make a genuine effort to make sure that they can, I will drop you and I will tank your speaks. Don't risk it.

* If you are at the TSDA and you are fluent in English, do NOT a) read arguments faster than conversational pace or b) speak in a way that ignores English grammar structure when you are debating against a team for whom English is a foreign language. I will tank your speaks and, if it's really excessive, will feel fine just dropping you. Additionally, please offer your opponents a speech doc in addition to the above and answer any clarification questions in good faith.

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable, have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@alumni.brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

I debated PF in high school. I am new to judging. I strongly prefer no spreading. I look for solid logic/reasoning, strong analysis of evidence (remember that evidence should support, not drive the argument), and clear communication. Be respectful. 

Hello, I did pubic forum debate for 4 years at Lincoln Sudbury High School. I am now a fourth year student at NYU who has judged a little here in there in college. I have a very standard circuit pf paradigm (if you don't know what that means, ask). I don't mind some speed as long as it is clear. Please ask me any other questions before the round. Please have a fun and relaxed round, thank you!

The most important thing to me is that a warrant gets extending through final focus. Otherwise I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU!

I usually won't know the topic well so make sure to explain anything topic specific but I would like to think I have a pretty decent understanding of international politics and basic, debate relevant, economics.

Keep track of your own prep time and if you care, your opponents prep time, because I will not be timing either.

If you are gonna run theory or Ks, ask your opponent before the round if they are ok with it. I don't really like those argument styles but I'll vote for them if they are cleanly won.

:)

My email is bsh298@nyu.edu if there is any questions after a round or anything else (hopefully no death threats).

I am not a formally trained debater. Please do not spread, and explain your logic clearly. Refrain from using fancy debate terms, I will not understand them.

I prefer debaters who articulate clearly instead of word speeding.

I prefer debaters who reason not only logically but also have factual data to back up the reasoning, instead of only having factual data.

I prefer debaters who use common logic instead of convoluted reasoning.

I prefer debaters who understand not only your own contentions but also your opponents contentions.

I prefer debaters who can come up with good counter arguments to their opponents contentions using pertinent evidence and reasoning instead of going in circle.

I prefer debaters who are respectful to their opponents. Aggressively interrupting your opponents during cross should be avoided.

I have been a coach for over 10 years, but my team is student-led and you can consider me lay. I appreciate a more personal form of debate when it comes to judging.

Lots of eye contact with the judge (even during crossfire) and always address me as “judge” and your opponents as “my opponent (s)“ during speeches. Stand for all speeches and crosses, except grand.

Know your topic. Be ready to respond to arguments made by your opponents. I will be highly inclined to vote for the other side if you do not seem to understand the resolution and if you do not address your opponents contentions. Be sure to show impacts, provide clear links and weigh. Explain concisely why I should vote for you and not your opponent.

Do not waste time looking for your cards. Have your cards ready and make sure that the evidence being cited is easy for your opponents to find.

During interactions with your opponents challenge the speech, not the speaker, Abusive language and behavior will cost you points. Please, have an appropriate amount of physical desk space between you and your opponent.

When speaking, I appreciate a clear emphasis on what is important. I’ll be timing you, but please keep time for yourself.

I'm a junior at Yale and a former mediocre PF debater.

Ideally, debaters will cleanly extend their arguments—and their main refutations of their opponents' arguments—into summary and final focus. I will evaluate arguments that don't appear in both of the last two speeches with much less weight. That said, I always prefer if you do the weighing for me—either link or impact, depending on the context of the round. I do consider myself a flow judge, though I don't flow cross, so bring up important points/concessions in your next speech.

I can handle speed, but PLEASE make sure your opponents are okay with it before you spread, or at least send them a speech doc. I personally find it very detrimental to the spirit of PF to overwhelm your opponents with speed they can't flow.

Finally, and most importantly (in the grander scheme), do not be rude or condescending! Everyone comes to debate with different levels of experience, and newer debaters should never be made to feel bad for wanting to learn from experience. Best of luck!

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

I was a Circuit Debater for 4 years.

Run whatever you want I have no preference

Speed: I haven't been judging for a couple of years now so I'd say start off at 90%. I'll say clear twice before I start docking speaks.

Theory/T: Not a huge fan only run it if there's actual abuse.

K's: Was a big K debater in HS.

Don't be a jerk, be respectful

If you have any questions just ask!

Have fun!

shihab.joseph@gmail.com

I am a lay judge, I have limited experience as judge. I am a Dentist by profession.

Though I might have my personal opinions about any given topic, I will make sure my personal bias will not influence my decisions in the tournament. I will make sure my decisions will totally depend on the contestants knowledge, ability, competency and technical details of the topic given. I expect mutual respect between participants. Please speak clear and do not speak too fast, I want to make sure I follow what you are saying. Please be polite when you speak and do not interrupt the other speaker.

For Speaker Points:

1. Please be loud and clear.
2. Conversational speed talking.
3. Eye contact.

I am a lay judge with only around 10 debates under my belt.

I am looking for how clearly/logically you present your case with special emphasis on how well you can counter your opponent's points.

All the best.

I am a parent/lay judge. I appreciate clarity over speed, as well as respectful disagreement. I expect you to synthesize and apply your research, not simply provide citations.

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.

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 :)

Debated. Did okay. Don't care about debate anymore.

Speech docs would be helpful and can be emailed to ekemelmakher@gwmail.gwu.edu

FOR NCFLS:I've never watched a policy round in my life, treat me like a 5 year old (some of them are probably smarter than me).

IMPORTANT: Read the pet peeves section of my paradigm at the very least. I get really annoyed when you do all of the pet peeves in a round. For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing, strike me.

PLEASE BRING ME FOOD. If you do I’ll give you 30s!

Debate is a game so have fun

- Truth over tech, please for the love of all that is holy have warranting

- If something happens in cross, please bring it up in the next speech.

- Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh it's how I decide the round pls weigh. Totally new Weighing in the first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier

- Make your weighing comparative, don't just use buzzwords like "we outweigh on scope" — that means nothing to me; there should be comparison and actual warranting for why I should prefer your arguments to your opponents

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in the summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

-Theory: Don't read it, I'll drop you. If there is actual abuse that needs to be covered, you don't need a theory shell.

Speaks

- Signpost, otherwise I'll be hella confused as to where you are on the flow

- Speak pretty, and be strategic and you'll get high speaks

- Moderate speed is ok, but if you start spreading I will drop your speaks

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive a 25L

Evidence

Evidence is overrated, I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, warranted analytics beats unwarranted carded stats every single time.

Pet Peeves

- Saying "My time starts on my first word". No really? I thought it started on your fourth word.

- Saying "We're gonna take some running prep." As opposed to walking prep? Where's the prep going? Just take prep, and tell me how much you took after.

- Giving a really long off-time roadmap, and then not even sticking to it. PF rounds are often pretty linear, you can just tell me what side of the flow you're starting on

Fun Stuff

If you do a 360 jump and call it a massive 180 when you read a turn: +0.5 speaks

The Office jokes in speeches: +0.5 speaks

Flow judge, former Policy debater.

HOWEVER I do try to honor the spirit of PF, which is that you should be able to convince the 'person on the street'. I want to hear an argument that would be intelligible to a person without a debate background, not too heavy on the jargon. Give me a clear argument and tell me how to weigh.

Speed is okay as long as you articulate.

Lay judge, do not spread, do not run theory

I debated in high school but am new to judging. No spreading. I look for solid logic/reasoning, strong analysis of evidence, and clarity. Be respectful. 

if you are rude to your opponents, i will dock speaks.

I debated for two years in high school, but treat me like a lay judge! Please talk slowly, signpost your arguments, and treat your opponents with respect. Tell me what is important and what I should be voting on!

I am lay judge who has recently (since 2021) started judging PF debates.

Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, some/medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I award speaker points based on how clearly you lay out your case. It helps if you provide a good summary of your case in the final focus.

Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.

Hello,

My name is Avinash Kumar. My son, a public forum debater is writing this paradigm. Yale will be my first time judging PF, however, I understand certain debate aspects. I am a parent judge. Here are my preferences: 

1. Do not spread. I prefer the clarity of arguments over quantity.
2. Do not present theory. My understanding of public forum theory is very very low and my threshold for voting off a shell is even lower. 
3. Do not present new arguments in FF. I won't evaluate them. 
4. Truth > Tech. Albeit tech is very important, I am not very good at flowing. I also have a very deep understanding of foreign politics, geography, and other niche aspects of the debate space. I will try to keep truth interjections to a minimum. 
5. Defense isn't sticky. Extensions are very important.
6. Impact and/or weigh turns. Specifically, tell me why your turn is more important than their arg.

Please be respectful towards your opponent, especially in crossfire. I prefer you to win a debate through logic rather than being the louder person. 

Evidence: metaquizics1@yahoo.com. Include this email in email chains, but know that I will only check evidence if any egregious errors or extenuating circumstances occur. If your opponent is lying about evidence, be sure to tell me in your speech. 

Don't post round me. I'll try to give the best feedback I can, but my decision is final. 

Good Luck Debaters!

Speak slowly and clearly so I can understand your arguments; if I don't understand them, I cannot vote for you. Use only realistic arguments.

It's helpful when you frontline and give implications in your speeches. Make sure to weigh in summary and final focus with consistency.

Do not run theory or any type of progressive arguments.

Be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to listening to your round!

I am a college student who did PF in high school.

Hi everyone! I'm Claudia and I debated PF for six years at Poly Prep (Poly LS/LM).

Please be preflowed and ready to debate, especially if you're flight 2

also set up email chain asap even if I'm not there, nsd email ishan.debate@gmail.com

tech > truth. You can speak fast but <250 wpm you should send a speech doc. If I literally can't understand a single word you say I'm not flowing off the doc. Like clear spreading is more than fine but no mumbly slurred speeches please.

I will vote for pretty much any argument that is warranted well.

I don't listen to cross. Any concession must be explained in a speech. If both teams agree to skip GCX, that's fine with me. Both teams would get 1 min of prep instead.

NSD- If you read unnecessarily abusive arguments much lower labs, I will lower your speaks

Besides that ask me any questions you have.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 2.5

LARP - 1

Kritik - 2

Tricks - 4

Non-T Kritik - 4

Performance - 4

High Theory - 5

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

3 Years Highschool PFD Debate

3 Years College Policy Debate

(Policy)

1. I'm fine with speed. Obviously if you're forcing it and sound off and you dont see me flowing then you need to slow down (which you and your partner should be observing anyway).

2. You will benefit greatly by slowing down on tag lines and reading plans, and flipping between flows.

(PFD + Policy)

I'm really big on the technical side of debate. That means clearly outlining and discussing the:

1. Impact Calculus

-Timeframe
-Magnitude
-Probability
-How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts
-How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

2. Links

-They do X so they link, is not a link.

-I weight links pretty heavily in arguments so I prefer when debates spend time to contextualize the links within the story of the debate

3. Uniqueness

-Usually not an issue but i've been surprised before, often gets assumed

4. Internal Link

-Im very skeptical of you just arriving at extinction. I mainly ran policy arguments so I know how ridiculously easy it is to just fit in 16 extinction scenarios in your constructed speech but I need to see that internal link debate fleshed out.

5. Open to any kritiks/performance but the above bullets apply even more so. I do not like when teams brush over the technical side of debate just because they arent running nuclear war. Arguments are still arguments and logic is still logic.

6. Framework - I lean towards debate being a game. That being said, there are obviously millions of ways to debate within that framework.

Anything else just ask.

Kurtis Lee

Hi! I'm Felix (he/him), and I debated PF at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I got to octas at the TOC and top-spoke Harvard, Lexington, and Bronx. Now I debate APDA and BP for Yale.

Add felix.j.leonhardt@gmail.com to the email chain.

Parli paradigm:

Treat me like any other parli judge. Don't make new arguments or responses in your last speech -- use this speech to collapse on an argument and explain why it wins the round.

PF paradigm:

I will vote off the flow (tech>truth, tabula rasa), unless one team is rude/offensive, in which case that team will lose.

I feel comfortable evaluating almost all arguments that I have come across in PF, but I have significantly more experience with topical debates. This means that I am more likely to make a good decision in topical rounds, and it means that I will be more receptive to arguments about why topical debates are good.

No matter what kind of argument you decide to read, here are my requirements.

1. Be nice!

2. With the exception of arguments made in first constructive, if any argument (weighing, defense, turns, etc.) isn't responded to in the next speech, it is conceded. This means second rebuttal needs to frontline.

3. Nothing is sticky; first summary needs defense if you want it to be on my ballot.

4. You need to extend your arguments in summary and final focus.

5. Debate is an educational activity, so fairness is very important to me. As such, I won't evaluate arguments that I believe are made to win the ballot in a way that your opponents can't interact with. This includes theory against novices and tricks.

Below is some additional advice. While nothing below is required, it will probably help you win, and it will definitely help you get better speaker points.

1. You almost always need weighing to win. Don't explain why your impact is large or probable, explain why your impact is larger or more probable than the other team's impact. This goes for any type of round -- substance, theory, K, or other.

2. Teams don't read as many analytics as they should. Don't just read your blocks; explain to me why your opponents' argument is wrong.

3. For arguments about structural violence, framing is good. It should come early in the round.

4. I dislike the new trend of reading six case arguments and going for the one that's undercovered. I don't think you leave yourself enough time to fully explain a link chain for each argument, and by omitting parts of the link chain, I think you make it harder for your opponents to respond. If you do this, I will consider the other team's pointing out the omission (of lack of development) of a certain part of the link chain as sufficient defense.

5. Ask me questions after the round. Learning from both wins and losses is how to get better at debate.

Most importantly, have fun! I love debate and I want everyone to love it.

I am a lay judge who began judging debates last year when my son entered HS. I have been a judge in about five debate tournaments not including States, which was this past Spring. I take judging seriously, and have incredible admiration for HS debaters and the time and effort that one has to contribute in order to be an effective and competent competitor. 

What I look for when judging is mutual respect, debaters to not rush their words so that we, the judges, can understand what they are trying to communicate, and I highly encourage signposting. I want to underscore the importance of not speaking so fast that it becomes difficult to follow your argument. 

While I appreciate the motives behind progressive argumentation, I do not have experience judging it and therefore would advise debaters to not use this in rounds that I judge. 

Although I am not perfect, I promise at each debate to do my best and to give my full attention to the debate at hand. 

Hi! I am a first time parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and I will try my best to understand. Preferably do not use any jargon in your speeches and be polite and cordial. Other than that, have fun! 

I am a parent judge, however I will flow. I recommend you consider me more of a flay judge. Slow down and speak clearly. Focus on a small number of well-supported arguments about what matters most, rather than trying to cram a long list of peripheral matters into the short time you have available. In other words, please do not spread.

While it's good to cite sources, I have not read your cards and prefer a logical argument to a blizzard of sources. If you extend a card in the back half, explain what it said. I may not remember based solely on the author's last name.

Feel free to stand or sit, but please don't stand awkwardly stooped over your laptop.

I am unfamiliar with progressive arguments. Please strike me if you plan to run theory or kritiks. 

I'm a parent judge. Fluent in English but not a native speaker, so slow down, I don't evaluate what I don't understand, including jargon. I vote for the cleanest argument extended through the round, and I care most about logic and argumentative reasoning (that's not to say that I don't care about anything else, however).

Pronouns: she/her

Background: 3 years of active participation in NSDA China Public Forum debate tournaments. 3 years of coaching in high school debate club.

Public Forum Debate:

I judge according to the final arguments on the flow. Dropped arguments are not given credit unless brought up in the final focus.

Failing to provide evidence you cited and exhibiting any type of aggression will significantly impact your credibility.

Clarity of speech is essential. Try not to exceed 800 word/4 minutes.

I debated PF for about 2 months in high school. I have judged middle school rounds.

I like jovial, inclusive, and earnest debates; roadmaps; and clear impacts. Do not make bad faith arguments. Do what you must in cross, but note interpersonal power relations and conduct yourselves accordingly. Ask me about my judging rationale after the round.

General

I am a coach and have judged PF for many years.

- DON'T SPEAK FAST OR SPREAD.

- Yes, I want to be on the email chain. vaibhav_mahajan@yahoo.com

- I'm fine with you reading theory or K's as long as it is well explained and defended.

- Truth > Tech

- Be respectful and remember that cross is not for arguing but rather to further understand each other's positions and discuss about evidence.

- Don't waste cross time to call for cards. Do that separately, and prep time will count towards you reading the cards.

- Don't read anything new in the second half. I will accept new weighing and frontlining in summary but not in Final Focus.

- I work in the finance and banking sector so I will understand economy-related arguments extremely well and will be more willing to vote off them

- BE PROFESSIONAL.

Decision

I give my ballot to the side that does the best impact comparisons and weighing, provides good quantitative statistics and logical evidence, and well constructs/explains their narrative.

Speaks

- I DO NOT TOLERATE RUDENESS/RACISM/SEXISM

• I give speaks based off of organization, clarity, participation, and ethics

I debated for four years in high school, three of which were in PF. I had around five bids to the TOC and I broke first at NSDA Nationals. I also champed a few small to mid-sized tournaments in HS. I'm now a sophomore and I debate BP at Hart House at the University of Toronto and I coach PF (and BP occasionally). Add me to the email chain jmai7335@gmail.com.

General:

Tech > truth.

Be nice.

Nothing __ist or ___phobic.

If there is no offense generated by either side by the end of the round, I default the team that wins the weighing.

I'm fairly generous with speaks.

The average speed of speeches has gone up, but my tolerance for speed has not. In fact, it's probably gone down since I did PF. I can tolerate around 200 WPM but anything above that, please send a speech doc.

In-Round:

Front Half:

I don't like this trend where teams blip twelve random arguments in constructive that are all underdeveloped and frankly kinda dumb, I'll still vote on these arguments if they're won, but I'd prefer a nuanced and clear debate.

Not a huge fan of disads/advantages.

Warrants are so cool and they make me very happy.

Don't disad-dump in second rebuttal or else I will be very sad.

Anything not responded to by second rebuttal is conceded.

Back Half:

Signposting is so cool and it makes me very happy.

Weighing is so cool and it makes me very happy (this includes weighing turns).

Meta-weighing is so cool and it makes me very happy.

Defense is sticky.

Don't go for too much.

Progressive Debate:

I'm not super familiar with K's, but I'm more comfortable with theory. Make of that what you will.

For theory, I default to competing interps and no RVIs.

I will vote on any shell if it is won, but my threshold decreases the more frivolous the shell.

If you have any questions at the end of the round, don't hesitate to ask.

Also follow me on IG @joseph.maii for a +0.5 speaks boost :)

(My partner from HS also stole this paradigm from me so if you ever get Rina Song as a judge, please give her a bad time).

You can put me on the email chain : stormeebryemassey@gmail.com

NOTE- I do not look at your speech doc during round- I only ask to be on the chain in case I need to view cards after round. Please do NOT assume that because something is in your doc, it was flowed.

ALSO-if you are second rebuttal speaker, I expect frontlining.

Team Involvement:

Coaching Experience:

Head Coach of US Debate Formats for Vancouver Debate Academy (BC)

Former Director of Debate at Grapevine HS and Trinity HS in TX.

I have over 8 years of experience coaching competitive speech and debate.

Competitive Experience:

College: University of Oklahoma Class of 14'

Degrees: BA of Arts in Russian and BA of Arts in English

HS: Flower Mound High School 09'

Background in Events: I did Policy debate for 9 years (4 at Flower Mound High School; 5 at OU)- I was a big K debater.

I have coached students in CNDF, BP, Policy, LD, Congress, WSD, and Public Forum.

I currently coach Public Forum Debate, WSD, CNDF, and BP.

PF [Updated for TOC 2025]

Here are my top five suggestions if you have me in a PF round:

1. Be organized- I keep a clean flow (I was a policy debater for a long time and have judged on a collegiate level). Speed is fine- just signpost.

2. Have evidence readily available- I evaluate a lot of your credibility in context of your evidence. Please make sure your evidence follows the standards set in the invitation. If words are half-highlighted, the argument is out of context, the source is not easily accessible, or paragraphs are clipped- there may be consequences. I am from a time when we cut paragraphs from book scans and taped them to cardstock- I do not like short cuts. Debate with integrity :)

3. Crossfire with care- Try to drive crossfire with questions and strategy- I am not a fan of back and forth arguments/tiffs during crossfire. Avoid being aggressive, please. I do pay attention to crossfire.

4. I am a flow/gameboard judge (tech over truth- barring discriminatory argumentation that is racist, sexist, etc.). - if you concede an offensive argument- that is potential offense for your opponent. If your opponent concedes an argument- point it out and extend it. I will almost always evaluate tech over truth if spin is not addressed directly.

5. I am not likely to vote on frivolous arbitrary theory- I want to see a substance debate. If you read an argument that your opponent should lose because they didn't do some arbitrary thing like putting their phone number on the wiki- I will want to vote against you. I am not a fan of arbitrary norms policing- theory should be used to prevent abuse, not facilitate it. HOWEVER, if your opponent concedes the theory, I will vote on it if you extend it properly- I will just be very sad.

pf: my only real reservation is that I can't handle a crazy amount of speed (if you're going too fast for me to keep up I will stop flowing). outside of that, feel free to have whatever kind of round you want. I actually enjoy theory debates so if you choose to go that route I won't mind.

ld: see andrew gong's ld paradigm

worlds: pls weigh

Background: He/Him; 3L at NYU Law; previously assistant director/head debate coach at Delbarton (NJ) 2020-2024; current assistant PF coach at Durham Academy (NC) 2024 - Present.

*Tarheel States Notice*:You should consider striking me if you don't cut accurate cards or won't use an email chain. It won't be an auto-loss, but I will consider arguments by opponents if they call out the lack of formatted evidence. The rest of my paradigm will be the same "technical" paradigm.

Email Chains:Please addnmdebaterounds@gmail.com to the email chain with the following subject line: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive – copy and paste all text and send it in the body of the email. The same applies to rebuttal evidence.

Evidence: Even if you paraphrase, I will only evaluate evidence in cut cards. These are properly cut cards. NSDA rules state it's definitive to highlight or mark for identification evidence read, and you need to highlight/mark for paraphrasing (p. 37-38)

Accommodations: Yes, just ask before round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Preflow before the round; speaks start at 28.

• Offense > Defense; clear and whole backhalf extensions matter.

• Slow down for tags when spreading. If I clear you, then you are no longer saying words -- slow down or annunciate.

• Second rebuttal / 1st summary should frontline all turns + their collapsed argument(s).

• New weighing in first final is okay, depending on if it’s responsive to 2nd summary. 2nd final can respond to 1st final weighing if it's new.

• Please do comparative weighing with timeframe, mag/scope, and probability. I rather not try to evaluate try or die.

• Tabula rasa to an extent – longer link chains will still be difficult to vote for and I will intervene on anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).

• Don’t crashout in cross. Put cross-analysis in ink with your speeches.

• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary with graphic depictions or identity-based Ks read. Otherwise, content warnings are generally good. Use your best judgment and follow tournament guidance.

"Progressive" PF: I'm open to the following arguments at any varsity / national circuit tournaments (please not in JV or Novice):

• Ks: Run at your own risk, but have judged IR, Cap, Securitization, and Killjoy arguments, but significantly less familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). These will require in-depth explanation throughout the round.

• Theory: Topicality, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Vague/Utopian Alts, as well as their derivatives/CIs, are fine to read in front of me. I default to competing interps and spirit over interp text. I generally think theory with legitimate violation stories is good, open-source (cut card + tag) disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene on the flow. However, if your disclosure is unintelligible because you pasted pages of article text, then I am more likely to believe you did not disclose in good faith (open to this as a debate response). Other interps are fine, but if it's frivolous theory (i.e., don't say good luck, shoe theory), I am more likely to intervene.

• Introducing excessive off positions in PF (e.g., 4-5) will decrease the chance of a comprehensible RFD.

LD

Cut card evidence ethics and email chain apply.

I've judged LD only a handful of times, but debate is debate. You probably shouldn't go full circuit style, but you certainly don't need to go full-on traditional mode either. However, in either debate style, I will still care about the line-by-line, so consistently respond to defense from prior speeches, crystalize offense, and consistently weigh your link or impact stories.

LARP/T/Theory>Trad > K/Nontopical Ks/Non-T AFFs > Phil/Tricks

More specifics if helpful:

Policy - Advs and DAs are great and what I most prefer. Any Plans/CPs should be specific with their solvency advocate. Very open to spec if any argument is too vague. I think the 2nr is more about crystalizing existing offense than dumping new evidence / impact scenarios, but new answers to 1ar defense make sense. Condo is fine but if it gets too silly then I'm open to hearing the shell.

T - Need to make sure there's good interp weighing/comparison here.

Theory - see PF section above. I am open to judging other interns, too, but the less serious the violation/more friv, the more likely I am to intervene.

Non-T/Planless AFFs - Again, open to judging it, have voted on it before in PF, but there's a risk of losing me, especially in K v K debates.

K - IR, Cap, Securitization, Afropess, Killjoy are fine, but any high theory lit will need significant explanation. Most important is contextualizing your offense while extending -- can't just ignore defense by extending through ink.

Tricks - Strike

Phil - Judged 3 phil rounds in PF, so overall not familiar with most lit; again run at your own risk or be ready to explain it well

Questions? Ask before the round.

I am the parent of a former Varsity Public Forum debater at Bronx Science, an intellectual property attorney, and former university professor of sociology and education. I hold degrees in biology, sociology, and the law. You should consider me a flay judge. I have judged over 80 rounds of PF debate and 8 rounds of speech competition, including at the Tournament of Champions (x2), Harvard (x2), Big Bronx (x2), Yale, Princeton, the Barkley Forum, Glenbrooks, and Apple Valley, among others.

I would appreciate your speaking at a reasonable pace to better enable me to understand your contentions and rebuttals. I value logical, well-warranted reasoning and analysis presented with clarity and precision. Signposting at the beginning of your speeches is also advised, especially during Summary and Final Focus. This will help me follow where you are going. Tell me clearly and precisely why I should vote for your side.

Finally, respect your opponents. Allow them to speak without constant interruption during Crossfire. I appreciate spirited advocacy but expect civility and decorum during the debate. Have fun!

Hello!

I look forward to judging your round today.

I am looking for good arguments and clear presentation. I did LD in high school but have not paid attention to the debate world since then. This means that I am unlikely to remember debate specific jargon. Gimmick-y stuff can be fun, but I think debate should mostly be about learning how to think and argue in a clear structured way. 

That being said, I was a philosophy major in college and am now in law school, so I should understand most things you throw at me!

Have fun!

hi I’m Arya (she/her), and I'm a sophomore at Emory. I did PF in Minnesota, and competed on the national & MN circuit for 4 years. if you have any questions before the round, please ask!

tldr: normal flow judge, collapse, extend (warrants not just taglines), weigh, have fun in round

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round, reach out on Messenger or email (arya.mirza23@gmail.com)

general:

- if you're gonna spread send a doc

- tech>truth

- implicate your responses - tell me what they mean in the context of your round instead of card dumping

- signpost! I will not know where you are if you aren’t signposting and will probably miss stuff

- warranted analytic>unwarranted evidence

- collapse

- don't spread against novices

- I'll presume whichever team reads a presumption warrant, and if neither does, I'll presume first

- you can postround just don‘t be rude about it

- read content warnings for sensitive topics with an option to opt out. form template here, feel free to make a copy and use this.

crossfire:

- don't be that one person that cuts everyone off and doesn't let people speak

- nothing from cross flowed unless you mention it in a speech

2nd rebuttal:

- frontline

- don't read DAs or offensive overviews in 2nd rebuttal

summary and FF:

- defense is not sticky, extend it in both summary & FF if you want me to evaluate it

- weighing is the most important part in the back half of the round, please make a comparative. 3 second blips of buzzwords is not weighing.

- extend your argument fully–uniqueness link internal link impact–otherwise I can't vote off it

progressive args:

- please stop having theory debates where you're not engaging at the basic level, like reading a CI but not responding to no RVIs, it makes it really hard for you to win the round

- I don’t know K lit well so if you’re going to run one, explain the argument super clearly

- I am predisposed to thinking friv theory bad but I won't auto drop you just for reading it

evidence:

- paraphrasing is fine, just do it ethically please (and don't paraphrase 12 paragraphs in one sentence)

- every card you read needs to be cut; if any evidence is called for, send the cut + the paraphrase that you read. if you don't have the cut card it's off my flow

speaks:

- entirely based on strategic in round decisions, not speaking style, way you dress, etc.

- speaks go up if you start weighing in rebuttal

- speaks go down for bad extensions (a tagline is not an extension), misconstruing evidence, and hacking prep

- do not be any kind of -ist or I will intervene

overall, be nice in round and have fun :)

I consider myself a traditional debater. I like to hear a good, well-spoken argument. It is important to see that the debater understands what they are arguing rather than simply regurgitating information as quickly as possible.

I don't particularly appreciate spreading and will not side with an argument I can not clearly understand. Say more with less and you have a better chance of impressing me. Keep in mind that debate is an oral activity, it is not my responsibility to read your case, it is your responsibility to explain it to me within the time limit.

Progressive debate is not my preference but if it is done well and the argument is made clearly, I will not mark down for it or vote against it. I will also add that I don't like "one size fits all" arguments. Be sure that your critiques, if you have them, fit the resolution that is being debated. We are here to debate the current resolution only, the fact that "other problems exist in society" is a given, if a particular issue affects the resolution and can be used as a reason why it should not be passed or even be considered, then I believe that to be a valid argument but simply stating that the world isn't perfect for xyz reason is not a reason for me to vote in your favor.

One note I will give- if you're going to argue "nuclear destruction" in any way, it has to be a realistic, credible threat. This is not a race to see who can get to nuclear war first nor do I give points just for you arguing that "extinction is the worst possible scenario so I have to win because I said it". If the resolution has a real, tangible threat of escalating to a nuclear threat, I will of course consider it in my decision, but if there is no clear link with substantive evidence of probability then this is not a contention that will impress me.

Dana Mollica

he/they

Email: david@notiosolutions.com

Experience: Debated in LD in high school and Moot Court in college, now I'm and English teacher and debate coach.

Paradigm: Persuade me. Warrant it.

...no really, that's it. Persuade me. You can persuade me using any number of techniques, but whether I'm voting off the flow, on theory, or topically on a well impacted argument, I'm still just voting on what I find the most persuasive.

I'm ok with speed. However, If I can't understand you, I'm not being persuaded. If you are going to spread, share your case with both me and your opponents.

If an argument is important, make sure you've clearly communicated it. If it's an online debate, make sure you repeat or slow down when making important points. I will not vote on arguments not carried throughout the round.

If only one side in a PF debate gives me voting criteria or framing, I will most likely be voting for that side.

In LD, do not expect me to vote on 1 line from the 1AC that you never bring up again till the last 30 seconds of the round. I assume that if an argument is important, you will actually take time to develop it. Just dropping it in in the last seconds is, in my opinion, a fairness violation.

I will highly favor debaters who actually interact with their opponent's case as opposed to simply reading a counter card and not addressing substance.

A few other things:

-Nazis equal Nazis. If you are going to link to Nazis or the Holocaust, do so carefully and avoid trivializing Nazis or the Holocaust by comparing everything to them.

-if you have a preferred pronoun, please let me know how you would like to be addressed prior to the start of the round.

-If you are reading a case that might be upsetting/triggering to your opponent, please provide a content warning at the beginning. If your opponent requests you not read triggering content, I will seek guidance from Tab and see if a side switch or other accommodations can be made. However, just because content is uncomfortable does not automatically mean it should not be read.

I value the quality of presentation and reward things like eye contact, slowing down when highlighting impacts, weighing/organizing in later speeches, and persuasive rhetoric.

Bring any meaningful cx points into your main speeches.

Be respectful to one another.

Rounds should not have any theory arguments.

I am a lay judge who prefers to see clear and persuasive arguments that convince me to vote for you.

I am a Yale student judging this tournament for the third year. I am familiar with the structure of PF, but I would appreciate if you clearly enunciated and kept your delivery at a normal speaking pace. I have minimal prior knowledge on the topic, so please err on the side of over-explaining while being concise and avoid complicated debate jargon. Please provide a clear summary of why you were the stronger team in the final focus, and remain respectful at all times. Thank you and see you soon!

I am a new judge, but have some understanding of Public Forum.

Please speak at a conversational pace, so that I can understand you.

Please be respectful and polite amongst each other and your opponents.

* Keep track of your own prep time.

Have fun!

Congrats on bidding to TOC!!

I debated public forum for 6 years from middle school to the end of HS at BC Academy and qualled for TOC with semis at Princeton back in the day. Unfortunately it's been long since I've been in the PF game and I know the meta has drastically changed since my time. I also haven't judged in a long time so I wouldn't claim myself to be a standard tech judge.

General:

Please send me your cases, and rebuttal docs before you speak. Helps me look at evi at the end without wasting time. Add me to email chains too: roseoh1004@gmail.com. (Must need if you plan to speak over 200wpm, you may lose me)

My debate terminology & understanding of the current meta is rusty. Progressive strategies might throw me off but I will try to understand and follow them to the best of my abilities. For reference, I was not into debating Ks or theories back in the day because I didn't even try to understand it fully.

I'm tech>truth, call out sus cards in front of me (I will call for cards if this is notably important at the end of the round - this is why i suggest teams to send me their cases)

Personally, I value well connected links in argumentation, leading to appropriate terminal impacts. While I can and have voted for anything, there is no guarantee that I will unconsiously take unexplained pointers that finish with broad or hyperbolized impacts with a grain of salt.

Things that I don't think will happen in TOC but left in the paradigm anyways:

Speaks related ------------

If you're saying something problematic/homophobic/anything along those matters, I enforce a no tolerance policy. Not only do I automatically give you a 20 on speaker points, I will message tab

If you're rude and not professional, I deduct 1 speaker point every second you keep up the attitude until it reaches 20

Prep/Time related ------------

If it takes you more than 5 minutes to get the card, you might as well not have one (plus note the new evidence prep policy at TOC)

Preferably time yourselves, but don't abuse this - I'd rather focus on the flow/content (I've had novices pull a fast one on me but I know TOC will know better)

I will keep track of prep though, seen too many debaters (novice or not) tryna pull a fast one on me

Double Drop related ------------

Much as I like double drop theory for the entertainment factor, do not run this as the ballot doesn't allow me to do so

SS & FF related ------------

Extend in SS to be considered in FF, if not I will drop the argument

Impact weighing & calc is a must for me in FF, weighing in summary is not required --> if you don't weigh, don't expect to win the round

Please do the work for me. I do not like to connect messy points together to flesh out what happened in the round nor like to artificially make clashes to pick a side, make it clear on the flow or else I will vote for the better picture/ side that is clearer

Zoom Specific:

My wifi a diva, I do advise you to disclose your case to me atroseoh1004@gmail.com before the round actually starts if you are planning to spread. Add me to the email chains while you're at it!

can handle up to 200 words per minute cuz you never know when my wifi will crash <3 , please send me your speech docs if you are planning to spread over my limit

Please try to wear headphones so that no one echos in the debate round -- my personal pet peeve!

Good luck at TOC!!

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 1/11/25

For PF - I am sick of seeing people read nonsense to win rounds. Please read educational arguments. I don't care if your opponent is wearing shoes and IVIs are getting really overused. There are obvious instances where you need theory, but I am sick of people using it to avoid learning anything about the topic.

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

Thank you for taking the time to participate in speech and debate. This summary should be succinct and to the point in order provide a guide or framework on how I typically judge participants.

  My experience: I’ve participated in congress and policy debate. My judging history has been congress, Lincoln-Douglas, PF, and Policy.   Speaking: Please ensure you speak clearly even if you are spreading or speed reading. If it’s not spoken, I will not be able to understand or weigh the item into the decision making process.   Decision process: It is the burden of the affirmative to carry without a reasonable doubt as to why your the winner. However, this does not mean that the negative can simply use one simple or anecdotal hole to throw out the entire case. I like to weigh the options presuming the burdens have been met.   Etiquette: Please ensure you are professional and respectful of your opponents and those in attendance. Rudeness and arrogance is not appreciated, and will be reflected particularly in the speaker points.   Thank you and best of luck!

email: sanjitap2003@ucla.edu, pronouns: she/her

hello! i debated in pf at dougherty valley for 3 years (doughtery valley kp and dougherty valley rp) and am now a sophomore at ucla. i'm a flow judge that will buy basically anything, but above all please make sure you are inclusive and kind.

- first: make sure you are reading content warnings with opt outs for sensitive topics (if you are unsure if a topic requires a content warning, better safe than sorry). if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory in any way i will drop you regardless of the content of the round.

- tech>truth, i love unique arguments that bring new perspectives to topics, i will not call for any evidence regardless of how sus i think it is if you do not prompt me to (i think that's intervention) HOWEVER, if i do call for the evidence and it is terribly misrepresented, i reserve the right to drop you

- second rebuttal should frontline, at least all of the offense, if you don’t i consider it dropped

- no "offensive overviews" in second rebuttal please, pf speech times were not built for this, if you are reading turns they must be implicated when you read them, i will not buy new implications into second summary and final

- i love love love weighing and think it's the best part of a debate round! please do it as early as second rebuttal. PLEASE please collapse on ONE argument in second rebuttal

- speaks are started at 28.5, i think speaks are arbitrary and allow biases to creep into judging so i will only go up based on strategic decisions made in the round or if you make me laugh , not speaking style

- you can talk as fast as you want but if i say clear 2 times and still can't understand you i'll stop flowing

- i prioritize WARRANTS over an evidence throwing party any day. good analysis > unwarranted stats

- i really really don't like when people get angry and mean during debate rounds. there is no reason to be mean over a round you won't remember in a few weeks.i will tank your speaks heavily for this :(

- summary and final should mirror each other and extend your case and impact. i will not vote off of it if the full argument and impact are not in both speeches. 

- i have experience with theory arguments but if i feel even slightly that you are reading the argument to win ballots, not because there is abuse, i will not vote on it. i have slightly less experience with Ks but i can understand and judge most if you explain the warrants and framing.

above all, have fun! let me know if there's anything i can do to make the round more comfortable for you :)

This is my fifth year as a parent speech and debate judge, most of which has been spent judging public forum and lincoln douglas debate.

Please be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please follow the rules and treat everyone fairly.

I appreciate speaking that is reasonably paced so that I can follow your arguments, so a little quicker than conversation-paced speaking works best for me. You will have enough time to make your arguments without rushing through them. I will listen carefully to your evidence, and to me, a few pieces of strong evidence are far superior to a lot of weak evidence.

I have little knowledge of your topic and have not prepped so do not assume that I know the literature, arguments, or acronyms.

Please convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

Hello, I am Mary, a parent relatively new to judging (a standard lay judge).

Here are my preferences:

• Speak slowly and clearly. I take notes, so to ensure that I don't miss anything, slow down your pace and emphasize the most important points of the round.
• When voting, I look at whether you responded to your opponents' key points and whether you weighed comparatively.
• Most importantly, be respectful in round, both in tone and rhetoric; You will lose my vote immediately by being impolite.

I am looking forward to hearing all arguments and speeches!

I debated in high school and college some years ago. I am a lay judge. I have judged PF over the past 3 years. I encourage speaking clearly and at a pace that is not too fast. I will flow the round. Explain why you believe your side should win and why your arguments are more compelling than the other side’s. Good luck to everyone!

**Please add me to the email threads/email chains so I can follow along with the evidence presented: alejandra.pocock@aquinas-sta.org

**Remember that Public Forum Debate is the format of debate that most of the general public can follow and understand.**

I'm a citizen judge who will decide the round on clear, concise arguments from both sides based on the evidence presented. I follow the clock and the NSDA Regulations fully.

As an English teacher, I will especially take note of strong word choice, thoughtful syntax, and overall rhetoric.

During the rounds, please be sure to speak clearly. Be respectful to everyone in the round/on the 'call.' Even though this is a competitive event, we are still in the educational orbit. Use these tournaments as learning experiences and opportunities to further work at your craft.

Last but not least, please have fun and enjoy this experience! GOOD LUCK!

If my judging strategy doesn't match what your team is looking for, please feel free to STRIKE ME. I won't take it personally. Everyone has their tastes and are entitled to them - especially in tournaments where you have a say in your judge panels. Take advantage of the benefit! 

Hi I'm Sophia! I debated natcirc at Whitman for 3 years. This is my former partner Katheryne's paradigm and I agree with all of it.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of:am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! mid to bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

please add sophia@nationaldebate.clubto the chain. if i have judged you before,please don't add my old email to the chain

2024-25 season update:

1. i am finding that my tolerance for poorly signposted and bad clarity speed is getting lower. i find it especially hard to flow 6 spammed one line cards when frontlining that aren't signposted or implicated, which i am hearing more and more of. be clear and slow down on tags or just slow down all together because i will 100% miss a warrant or two if you're not, and won't take extra time to fill stuff in from your doc (meaning i'll use whatever your opponents use to prep after your speech if i need it, but not more).
2. read number 1 again please
3. current pet peeve: structural violence refers to an institution or social structure perpetuating some form of harm or violence, it is a specific term that does not just mean "something bad happens to someone marginalized," and i am always gonna be down to hear "they don't link into SV bc their link is about disparate criminal orgs and not a structural problem" as a response to framing
4. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination etc, not like disclosure) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way. if you want me to do something differently/evaluate an argument i say i don't usually evaluate/whatever, give me a warrant why i should.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then you'll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, i will make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won. that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances.

no tricks - you will have a hard time convincing me this is a good model - but if that's the hill you wanna die on go ahead

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

• speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

• RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants.I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theoryEVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

• you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

• in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theoryi am probably just not a good judge for!i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically:feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away!but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have:i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks.i'm probably not aterriblejudge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

Iam a parent judge. It is important you go slowly and explain your arguments clearly.

I am generally a traditional judge. Speed is not such a big issue for me, but if you start spreading or speak erratically, I won’t flow. Just make you can articulate your words clearly and your argument itself is clear as well. However, I will most likely not flow if you start spreading.

Please respect your opponents. Just make sure you do clear signposting and show why you are winning the round over your opponent. The addition of new arguments where they should not be present is grounds for both speaker point reduction and won't be flowed towards any progressive argumentation of contentions that mention your new argument. I will vote off of the flow. Lastly, slow down at taglines/plans, and I focus on the quality of the argument rather than the number of your arguments. Overall, this debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge, so make sure that every round is focused on this.

For BQCFL:

I am only aware of the LD topic, I have not judged any rounds for it

For PF, I previously judged for Yale, so I know a few of the arguments for this topic

I encourage debaters to have quality over quantity with clear logic and evidence to substantiate their arguments that lead to logical conclusions. Please avoid speaking at a super-human pace and in general keep it simple.   

As I would like to focus and listen to the debaters, please be prepared to time your team and that of your competitor's.

I would like to emphasize the importance of professional decorum. Please do not be toxic or exclusionary in any round as  this will lead to dropping you or your points. Please avoid speaking over one another during CF.  

Best of Luck and have fun!

This is my second time judging public forum debate and I consider myself an amateur parent judge.

I am an attorney with previous moot court experience and so am familier with the art of persuasive advocacy.

I flow the debate and make my decision on the contentions. You win on the basis of evidence and weighing in the Final Focus.

I judge on content, not delivery. I am comfortable with most speeds but recommend you not go too fast. Please keep track of your own time.

Most importantly, have fun.

I competed in PF for 4 years in high school with School Without Walls.

Likes:

Weighing(!!!, make it easy for me to cast the ballot for you), strong warrants and impact, common sense, narrative, lay appeal, strategic collapsing, actual clash

Dislikes:

Relying on theory, speaking excessively fast, unsubstantiated claims/weighing, dropping, new offense after rebuttal, being a bad sport

Good luck!

I competed in public forum between 2012-2016, as well as in extemp and group discussion. I flow when I judge debate. Part of being an effective speaker is knowing what points are most salient, and therefore I prefer that you don't spread or speak too quickly - just focus on your strongest points.

In college I studied finance. I'm currently a financial analyst for an automotive company, while also supporting the company’s lobbying activities.

Gabe Rusk ☮️&♡

Email: Please cc

gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

fairmontdebateteam@gmail.com

If you have any questions about NSD this summer come chat with me! I will be assisting as PF Curriculum Director at Philly I and II. Come join us.

King/NDCA/TOC

I have judged a lot of rounds folks. The most joy I have in rounds these days is when we are closest to the orbit of the topic literature and doing comparative analysis/weighing/evidence comparison. This is basking in the warm topic sun. This piques my curiosity more at the moment and the farther from the center we go the colder I get. We have come a long way at a lot of these tournaments and I would prefer more topical oriented rounds where possible.

It is with awe
that I beheld
fresh leaves, green leaves,
bright in the sun.

- Basho

Background

My research interests for the last 10 years and in grad school have been legal history, press freedom, and the First Amendment. Check out more recommendations for long-form journalism and press freedom here at www.FreePressForAll.org

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at ISD, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

1 (Thriving) - 5 (Vibes Are Dwindling) - 10 (Death of the Soul)

LARP -1

Topical Kritiks - 3

Non-Topical Kritiks - 4

Theory - 5

"Friv" Theory/Trix - 8

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. This is why metaweighing is so important. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc is a means to differentiate but you need to give me warrants, evidence, reasons why prob > mag for example. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• I would prefer if case docs were sent prior to the constructives to minimize evidence exchange time but not required of course.
• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence.Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do.

• Second rebuttal must at least respond to turns/terminal defense against their own case.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Maybe I am getting old but try to be on time, especially flight 2, like arrive early.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

Hello debaters! I am a parent judge, and have judged a few PF tournaments.

Please speak at around 200-250 WPM. 

So that I can follow along and make sure not to misunderstand your points, please send me a speech doc of your case before the round: avisurnyc@gmail.com  It would be much appreciated.

I pay attention to topics and clarity of speech. I also pay attention to the relevance of answers to cross questions.

Ability to quote facts from research and use properly in constructive speeches. 

Quality of facts is more important than quantity.

Please extend your arguments through case , if you do not talk about it in summary I will not vote on it. Also extend your links and walk me through your argument.

Keep time of your own cases and your opponents , as well as prep time.  

*For Yale Invitational 2022

Background: I am currently a sophomore at Yale studying Economics, Politics, & Ethics. I debated public forum on the national circuit for NSU University School from 8th until 12th grade. I qualified to TOC, nationals, states, and made elimination rounds at many national circuit tournaments. I would consider myself a flow judge, but take that as you will since I have been removed from the community for a couple of years. 

General: I won't be timing speeches. It is up to you and your opponent to keep each other in check in terms of timing. Please be respectful. Debate is an amazing activity and being rude during rounds discourages people to do it. Your speaks will suffer if you are disrespectful and you probably won't win. There is a way to be assertive without being mean. I don't like theory or k's. I will vote on them if I have to, but I just don't like them. If I were you I would refrain from running either. Your job is to make my job easier to vote for you. The way to do that is to collapse and weigh. I beg of you. Don't go for your entire case, it just makes the entire debate messy.

Topic: I should not know more about the topic than you. The extent of my knowledge is reading a couple articles last night. However, me not being well versed in the topic does not mean that I won't understand the argument if you present it well. 

Cross ex: Again, just be respectful. Bonus speaks if you say something funny (or a Kanye reference). 

Summary: Anything that you mention in final focus and want me to vote on should be in summary. 

Evidence: Although I don't prefer it, I am fine with paraphrasing. Just don't misrepresent the evidence. I will only call for evidence if its validity is contested in the round and it's a major voting issue. I do encourage you to call for evidence from the other team that seems sketchy. 

Speed: Don't full-out spread. You are not meant to spread in PF. Speak fast if you want as long as I can clearly hear you. Just please don't spread.  

If you have any questions feel free to reach out. caleb.samson@yale.edu

she/her/hers

hi! i did nat circuit pf at dougherty valley and am now a sophomore at usc

PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

please let me know (email, messenger, before/in round) if there is anything i can do to make the round more accessible & safe for u

i've barely debated progressive arguments. if you think there's a huge abuse in the round & theory is necessary then go for it, i’ll try my best to evaluate it. same goes for Ks

read content warnings with an opt out if you're discussing anything sensitive i'll be very upset if you don't + i'd be very happy to hear trigger warning theory after. if ur not sure what constitutes a sensitive topic, totally ask me before the round

i'm cool with speed but i can't handle spreading - u cld send me a doc but i hate flowing off those & i probably won't be able to copy everything from it so just slow down

find ur cards in less than 2 mins or i'll drop ur speaks

you should frontline (at least what ur going for + turns) in second rebuttal

defense isn't sticky

signpost!! or else i'll miss stuff

i'll only call for evidence if you tell me to (pls make sure ur evidence is cut properly and says what u say it does)

make sure ur weighing is comparative. i think rebuttal is the best time to start weighing

i have no tolerance for overly aggressive or rude behavior in cross. if ur worried that u might be being mean, u probably are. i'll happily tank speaks/drop a team if they exhibit problematic behavior or are excessively rude

i presume first (plsss never make me presume)

i don't think i'm a very tech-y judge. i prefer slower debate with a good narrative & good clash over a fast debating dumping a bunch of arguments.

don't aggressively post-round (the ballot is literally already submitted) but pls ask any real questions u have about my decision & any questions in general, i'd love to help

debate is a game, have fun!! lmk if you have any questions :)

Hello, I am a parent judge. I will vote on knowledge and accurate facts presented, based on extensive research.

Try to persuade me the best you can.

Please make your arguments clear and convincing.

Thank you so much for letting be a judge.

If someone wants to start an email chain pre-round, use this email: Senghas.Jacob@gmail.com

Debate Coach for Wayland High School, 2019-Present.

Debate Coach for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2017-18.

Former Extemp speaker and PF/Congressional Debater with Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2008-2012:

MA HS State Championships 2012, Congressional Debate, 6th Place.

2012 Harvard Semi-Finalist.

Collegiate debater for the University of Vermont in the British Parliamentary/WUDC format, 2012-2016:

Binghamton IV 2012, Octofinalist, Top Novice Speaker;

Vienna IV 2014, Finalist;

Ljubljana IV 2014, Semi-finalist;

Pan-American Championship 2014, 2nd place;

Northeast Regional Championship 2014, Semi-finalist;

Northeast Regional Championship 2015, Finalist;

Brandeis IV 2015, Semi-finalist;

Empire Debates 2015, Semi-Finalist;

Malaysia WUDC World Championships 2015, Finished in the top 10% of teams but didn't break, took a round from a world finalist (not an achievement but I'm proud of it so it's going here);

National Championships 2016, Octofinalist;

Winner of countless irrelevant speaker awards.

About me: I’m a sophomore at Yale College with some experience in parliamentary and PF debate.

Judging style: I like teams who work together and take time to define terms. I like structured arguments rather than disjointed points.

Hello! I debated for Princeton High School on the national circuit.

I never really liked super long paradigms so I’ll try to keep it brief.

Add me to your email chains cwshen@wharton.upenn.edu 

General Preferences

- Tech > truth but I think the best debaters are ones who build a narrative while still winning the flow. That means things like unwarranted responses or blippy extensions will make it much harder for me to vote for you.

- Please weigh! This is also more than just throwing out buzzwords like “scope” or “magnitude” – you should actually resolve the weighing debate.

- Collapse on 1-2 pieces of offense in the back half of the round. It makes the debate much more engaging and much easier to evaluate!

- Speed: I’m pretty good with speed but a speech doc is always appreciated. Please don’t spread on me.

- When extending arguments/evidence, you need to tell me what the argument/evidence says. Don’t just say “extend Peters ’19”. Tell me what Peters said.

- Signpost for my sanity

Progressive Stuff (Ks, theory, tricks, etc.)

** for NSD camp: debate substance, you're here to learn about the topic and I'll be very hesitant to vote on any prog

I’m familiar with progressive arguments but given that I’m an East Coast debater who literally only does PF, don’t be surprised if I'm not totally down with voting on your shoe theory. In most cases, I won't vote for it, but if you genuinely believe there is a real abuse and you impact it convincingly and in an accessible manner, you can give it a try.

Important Stuff: Above all, be nice! Any racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in an L and the lowest amount of speaks I can give you. Competing in tournaments is hard and it’s always worse when you leave a round with a headache. Have fun!

I have experience judging PF, LD, and Speech at national-level tournaments. For PF: I am open to a wide variety of approaches to a topic and try not to intervene in a round unless absolutely necessary. Generally, I encourage debaters to consider quality over quantity, making links between evidence, contentions, and impacts as clear as possible, and to avoid speaking at super-human speed. It is also helpful when debaters consider framework and make a case for what voting issues should be in a round and how the arguments should be weighed. Please be mindful of not speaking over one another during CF.

Welcome, debaters and speakers!
I’m excited to be here as your judge, bringing several years of experience in speech and debate. My goal is to ensure a fair, supportive, and constructive environment for all participants.

Debaters:

- Prioritize strong logic and reasoning. Build a clear, well-structured case, present coherent arguments, and demonstrate the ability to critically engage with and respond to your opponent’s points.

- Advocate effectively. Persuasion is key - articulate your position clearly and offer compelling reasons for your audience to support your perspective.

- Use evidence wisely. Cite credible sources and integrate them smoothly into your arguments. Be prepared to defend the credibility of your sources if challenged.

- Maintain professionalism. Treat your opponents and fellow debaters with respect. Keep the focus on ideas and arguments, not personal remarks.

Speakers:

- Ensure clear organization. Your speech should have a logical structure with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion, making it easy for the audience to follow your ideas.

- Emphasize reasoning and analysis. Dive deeply into your topic, offering thoughtful insights and demonstrating a thorough understanding of the subject.

- Deliver with impact. Pay attention to your tone, pacing, and emphasis. Use your voice and body language to engage your audience. A strong delivery can be just as persuasive as strong content.

Please take this opportunity to showcase your speech and debate skills. I’m here to encourage your growth and provide constructive feedback. Good luck to each of you, and have a wonderful event!

Background: Currently a second-year out, debated 3 years of Public Forum on US national circuit.

Online Debate Specific: Please be clear and articulate. Online debate is hard for everyone - please tell a story that doesn't involve a million complicated link chains and don't try to spread your cards.

eming.shyu@yale.edu is the best email for evidence email chains.

General:

Here are the questions that I seek the answers to at the end of a round:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote there?

3. Why should I vote there instead of elsewhere?

Above all else, be clear and explain - that means giving me clear voting issues and not going for everything, extending and explaining warrants (don't extend through ink), and impact out whatever you want me to vote on. Comparative analysis will be crucial for my ballot because I really don't want to do the work for you - on the link level, that means telling me why I should prefer your link story; for responses, that means explaining why I should prefer your response/turn over their argument; on the impact level, that means WEIGHING. Both sides are probably going to be winning some argument - so please tell me why what/where you are winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

I prefer to look at substance more than anything else - so I am very unlikely to evaluate theories and Ks unless there is a real need for it. I don't normally flow cross, but if something is important bring it up in speech. Lastly, please be kind to each other.

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that.

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try :)

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

Please, please signpost.

Don't delink your own case to escape turns, just frontline them.

You can enter the room and flip before I get there.

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

Debated for 4 years in HS (2 years LD, 2 years PF) so you can use jargon and speak at a decent clip, but no spreading or Ks in PF, please.

Tech over truth, but if your opponent's claim is something obviously false (e.g., "the Earth is flat") then my bar for counterarguments will be proportionally lower (e.g., "the Earth is not, in fact, flat" would be a perfectly acceptable rebuttal).

Make my flow/decision easy. Signpost, speak clearly, and weigh early, explicitly, and often. Otherwise, just be nice to each other and have a good time.

BTW if you can go bar for bar to Freestyle by Lil Baby (no lyrics on phone/paper) I'll give you 30 speaks.

Affiliations:
2010-24: Lakeville North High School (MN)
2024-: Edina High School (MN)

Did Policy Debate in the late 90s & coached Policy and then later LD in the 00s. In that time, my students qualified to NSDA Nationals and the TOC. Since 2011 I have primarily coached limited prep and platform Speech events and some Congress. I taught at Gustavus Speech and PF camps when those were still around and have taught Extemp Speaking at ISD since 2018.

When I coached Debate, I preferred a faster, more technical approach. But time away from active coaching means I've not kept up with how the events have evolved. If fast and technical is your preferred style, I'll try to keep up but no guarantees. Podcasts at 2.5x aren't quite the same so please watch and adjust. I'm not cutting cards or actively coaching Debate so you may need to do more connecting of the dots to keep me on the same page as you. For familiarity and thresholds for types of arguments, please feel free to ask before the round.

Email chain: yatesh.singh@gmail.com

Happy to judge an informed debate on the given resolution.

Been a while since I judged PF or LD.

Good luck debaters!

Please abide with the following:

1. Start weighing at summary and carry weighing throughout the round.
2. You are responsible for keeping your time.
3. Sign post with arguments not authors.
4. Collapsing after summary speech is prohibited.
5. Do not run theories and/or K's - K's are abusive in PF.
6. Do not forget to warrant and link.
7. Remain respectful to all debaters.
8. Speak slowly and clearly.
9. Be sure to frontline speeches
11. During final focus, absolutely no new evidence should be presented. Speeches should clearly tell me why your team wins the round - make my decision easy and simple!

Remember - this is a fun experience and a learning opportunity for all debaters!

I am a parent judge

Speak slowly

Quality of argument over quantity of points and numbers

Make it easy for me in summary 

Be respectful

Aff on the left of me, Neg on the right

Hi! I am Naz Soysal (she/her), and I debated in World Schools Debate through high school. I was a member of the USA Development Team and Team Texas during those years, and I now compete in APDA and BP for Yale.

Some thoughts on debate in general:

1. Be nice. Debate is not that deep (even though it may seem like it sometimes). Don't ruin a round/tournament for someone else who will remember your rudeness.

2. Clarity is core. What does this mean? Explain to me in the final speech what you are winning, what you are losing, and why what you are winning is more important than what you are losing (ie WEIGH). Don't just list weighing mechanisms; explain why your weighing is more important than their weighing too.

3. Rounds should narrow. I care most about arguments that have been talked about the entire round, not some random subsection of one contention made in the first speech and dropped until the last speech.

4. I tend to care less about evidence/statistics than the logical backing behind arguments. Obviously, I abide by what is the norm for the event: I care a whole lot more about evidence (and especially evidence ethics) in PF than I would in WSD.

5. If the average reader of the New York Times wouldn't know what you're talking about, explain, explain, explain.

PF specifically:

1. I flow. I can't flow when you're speaking at lightning speed. You can speak above conversational speed, but if you see me stop flowing, you need to slow down– I am probably confused.

2. I've watched a few PF rounds with progressive arguments– generally, you can run them, but you need to explain things very clearly. Don't assume I know what an RVI is. Especially, don't be exclusionary– don't run theory on novices.

3. Please number mechs/responses and tell me where they are on the flow.

4. Add me to the email chain: naz.soysal@yale.edu

WS specifically:

1. I will gut-check your arguments. Please do not impact to nuclear war unless the debate is specifically about nuclear weapons.

2. I tend to have very little tolerance for language or style imported from PF/LD/Policy→ when judging a WSD round, if you use the word disad I will pretend to not know what it means. Style is a major factor in WSD– your speaker points will be docked.

3. Some judges have strong preferences on if you run a 3rd substantive or not in the second speech. I don’t really care, just be strategic. If you run one, make it matter in the round, else you’re just wasting speech time.

4. The big picture should be happening by 2nd opp at a minimum; line-by-line 3rd speeches are unstrategic. I don’t care how you condense the debate (questions, clashes, 2 worlds, etc.), but there should be a top-level structure.

5. If a principle is made properly, the argument will 100% outweigh the practical given the essence of a principled argument is that no matter the consequences, there are certain moral outcomes that matter more. Unfortunately, in 95% of debates I've seen or participated in, principles are made by putting a few buzzwords together and calling it a day. Again, be strategic. Make the argument properly or don't put it in at all– if your strength is practical arguments, then make practical arguments.

Above all, have fun!

Email for email chains: blakedocs@googlegroups.com

Update: 9/17/24

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I have coached the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1)Theory - Theory is not a game, it is for the improvement of debate going forward. I'm much more truth over tech on these issues. You will NOT convince me within the space of a debate round that paraphrasing is good or that disclosure is bad. In fact, as a squad, we are starting at Yale to disclose rebuttal arguments.

2)Understand what is theory and what are kritiks. IVI's are not a thing, pick a lane and go with one of the former arguments.

3)Presumption is a 1950's concept in debate. In fact, I would say that as a policymaker, I tend to favor change unless there is an offensive reason to trying change.

4) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

5) Read evidence (see theory above). I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

6) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce (email it) it in less 60 seconds.

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

9) Don't expect good points if you are blippy, you don't send out speech documents, or you send out a lot more than you actually read. Also, anything else that appears to be you trying to game the system or confuse your opponent. See #7 for good points.

10) Slow down, I'm not a lay judge, but flow judges need good signposting and good warrants, and not seven or eight analytic assertion arguments in a row

11) Weighing is comparative and needs time. Don't just talk about your argument.

12) If you read more than three contentions, expect your points to go down.

13) Ask me if you have questions

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

I am a lay judge, but have been taught to flow and have five years of experience judging PF. I prefer clear, slower speaking. Signposts are also super helpful. I don't intervene; I will judge your contentions by your ability to extend them and your opponents' ability (or lack thereof) to undermine them. I look for a logical argument. I like summaries and final focuses that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I've never called a card, but if an email chain is created, I would like to be on it. I'll give my email in the chat during the round. Speaking with passion is cool; aggressiveness is not. I do not like debates run on theory.

WEIGH. WEIGH. WEIGH. Otherwise I will be forced to do link/impact comparison for you, and you may not like how I do it.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

I debated four years pf, ld, and policy in high school and four years of policy in college.

I can flow pretty much everything, and I’ll evaluate all the arguments to the best of my ability. Try to give your arguments impacts and help me create a framework to evaluate the debate.

Update April 2024- some thoughts after a few years of judging pf

I'm considering not allowing off-time road maps as I think they've become super long-winded and silly. It's my preference that you say, "pro case then con case" or vice versa. Sometimes there are extra sheets of paper that's fine, but I've been in too many debates when the off-time road map sounds something like this, "I'm gonna start by talking about the major issues in the round, then I'm going to address some of the things my opponent has said, before frontlining and then weighing at the bottom." That is, essentially, meaningless to me.

I think that debaters should reward punctuality and timeliness. When I was a debater I didn't realize how much judges are on the clock. There is a judging deadline and if the debate starts late, or seems to take forever. Besides extenuating circumstances, I am always trying to be on time and I think it's selfish to make the tournament run late. That means if I only have two minutes left before the decision deadline, I am spending two minutes deciding. It is in your best interest as debaters to give me more time, not less to think about the round.

I've watched a few theory debates this year. I tend to think RVI's are silly. PF theory is not my favorite but I have voted on it before.

I do really like it when debaters make arguments comparative and have a lot of topic knowledge. I'm often interested in these topics and it's nice when you are too.

I won't evaluate "death good", wipeout, or tricks. I also have a high threshold for frivolous theory arguments, although I have no problem evaluating theory debate.

Hello debaters! I am a relatively new judge so I do not have much experience judging. However, I am a parent judge, so I know a little bit about how PF works.

Please speak slow. I am not used to fast-paced arguments.

So that I can follow along and make sure not to misunderstand your points, please send me a speech doc of your case before the round: ms.tongsun@gmail.com It would be much appreciated.

I promise to not vote off of cross or something like that. My daughter who does PF has given me some guidelines. I will give relatively high speaks unless you are rude.

Other than that, that is all! Please have fun and be nice.

For email chains, please add: ms.tongsun@gmail.com

(Credit to the great Sandeep Shankar for this paradigm)

I debated for two years in high school for Lincoln-Sudbury (in Massachusetts).

Frontlining:

I think you should be frontlining offense in rebuttal (turns and disads). I think frontlining defense is strategic, but it isn't necessary.

Extensions of Defense:

You must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped. Clean defense doesn't need to be extended, but the more you repeat an argument, the more likely it is to stick and for it to factor into my decision. Second summary should definitely be extending defense.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Weighing:

don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interpretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Speed:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but I'm not very experienced following full on spreading.

Tech vs Truth:

i'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well.

Miscellaneous:

i vote for the status quo on presumption

i will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

i am wholly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.

please ask any questions you may have before the round

Feedback:

at the end of the round, i will disclose the result and provide feedback. Ask me any questions about anything and I'll be down to give you whatever answer I can provide. I think providing feedback after round is the most direct way to convey my thoughts to you as debaters, so I'll prioritize that over writing down comments when I need to.

I competed in PF for 4 years for Whitman.

Likes:

Strong warrants, common sense, narrative, weighing, analytics, lay appeal, strategic collapsing, nuanced/creative arguments, frontlining in second rebuttal, slow final focus, actual clash

Dislikes:

Squirrelly arguments, progressive args/framing/theory, speaking really quickly, unsubstantiated claims/weighing, new offense after rebuttal, rudeness/making things personal

My 2 most important preferences:

1. Please, please slow down. I suggest 1 to 1.5x conversational speed; I think ideal case length is 680-700 words. If you could imagine someone asking for a speech doc, SLOW down! Implications for you:

-- If your speed means I miss something important, it’s like it never existed. I’m not gonna be like, “Hmm, maybe I heard something kinda like that” when you extend it. It’s goodbye

-- If your opponent cannot understand and asks you to slow down (do this by loudly saying “clear”), you must do so. Within reason; I will intervene in obvious cases of abuse

-- This preference is also reflected in speaks. Selective vision >>> brute force coverage. Extreme speed = low speaks

2. I place a strong emphasis on warranting. Implications:

-- If you and your opponent disagree on something, I prioritize your comparisons in this order: 1. Warrant comparison 2. Warranted evidence comparison 3. Evidence comparison that is just: “dates”

-- If an arg is not warranted and your opponent mentions this, I won’t let you bring in new warranting. Don’t go for something that wasn’t warranted in case and expect me to vote off it. Only exception is commonly intuitive statements

Notes on the flow

--Theory/K's/progressive args: I consider them a barrier to entry in PF and probably won't vote on them. 99% odds I won’t buy theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. If you do it in combination with extreme speed, consider it an auto-drop. If it's something you're genuinely concerned about, you impact it convincingly, and you make it accessible, you can give it a try. I seriously and strongly recommend against it, but you can

--I’m not super picky about extensions (e.g. if you extend a paraphrased version of your impact in summary and one specific impact card in FF, that’s fine). But ofc any argument in FF should be in summary

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal if it isn’t frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. But I’d still recommend extending a couple of your favorite responses in summary

--2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline their voters, though it must frontline major turns/ offensive overviews

--2nd rebuttal shouldn’t go overboard with disads; > 1 minute on them is too much. If a ton of your speech is disads and it feels abusive I may drop you. Even if I don’t, the speaks will suffer and I’ll allow blippier responses in 1st summary

--if there’s no offense in the round that I can see, I default first speaking team. (I realize this is unusual, I personally think it's fairer)

Please be kind to each other. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me at beginning of round. Good luck!

I'm a parent judge. Judged quite few tournaments in the past two years, been following debate topics very closely. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I am looking forward to hearing from both sides arguments.

Add me to the email chain if there’s one: ytang97@gmail.com

Don't call developing countries "third world countries". I'll knock speaker points off.

Also I don't flow cross.

arman.tendulkar@tufts.edu

FB messenger: Arman Tendulkar

Conflicts: Newton South, BCDC

Hello. My name is Arman Tendulkar, I competed on the Public Forum National Circuit from 2018-2022 for Newton South High School.

First and foremost I consider myself a tech over truth judge, but will interfere in instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or any other issues that compromise the safety of an individual in the round.

There is a lot more stuff later in my paradigm, but genuinely the most important thing for me is weighing. I don’t care if you’re winning 80 pieces of offense if it’s not weighed against your opponents 1 piece of offense there is a chance I will vote for them.

Now for the actual stuff:

Rebuttal:

I can flow speed and will accept a max of 250-300 words. If you are within this threshold, please send a doc because I really don’t want to miss responses that could be key for the backhalf of the round.

Dumping is ok, only if you actually know how to do it. I don’t want to hear a team put 14 turns on a contention if none of them are weighed, impacted, and have an implication. I expect every offensive response to have an impact and piece of weighing associated with it and every response in general to have a clear implication. I don’t want to be doing the work for you

Please don’t be a doc bot :((( I know PF kind of took a turn for the worse when we went online, but I miss the days when kids would just bring up a piece of paper and give an eloquent rebuttal off the dome. That being said I won’t pick you up/drop you for using a doc but it might impact speaker points if you don’t look up once during rebuttal.

Offensive overviews are fine, but please don’t be abusive and just read an entirely new contention as an offensive overview, it should have a link into the actual case.

2nd Rebuttal:

Don’t go for everything. I mean do it if you want but it isn’t strategic at all. I think choosing 1-2 arguments is always best, and collapsing in rebuttal is a great way to ensure a ballot win.

Offense must be frontline in rebuttal, defense doesn’t have to be frontlined but if you collapse in 2nd rebuttal I think frontlining the defense is also strategic

Defense is not sticky, summaries are three minutes now so there aren’t any excuses

Please weigh, even if you haven’t collapsed yet, weighing is so beautiful

Summary:

Extensions for me are the most important part of summary. Too many times I see debaters just fake extend the link without telling me the story properly. If your extension isn’t warranted correctly then there is a high chance I just won’t vote for you. I’m a very tired person and chances are I’m mentally exhuasted during the first half of the round, that is why I’m counting on you to give me a great extension in the backhalf so I can properly understand what your argument is.

Signpost please, I’ve seen and given some really wack summaries, but as long as you sign post I couldn’t care less what your order is. Don’t just say “onto our first argument” say “onto our first argument about ______ “

Final Focus:

Should basically be summary but more condensed, extend, frontline, weigh etc…

Final Focus is too late for new pieces of weighing unless it’s metaweighing. Metaweighing is great and I hope everyone utilizes it. Don't really flow it.

Weighing:

I talk about this a lot but let’s get more specific

Short-circuits and pre-reqs can and will win you rounds. When executed correctly they are amazing and I will be very happy if you bring them up.

Probability is not weighing: if you are winning the link you have 100% probability in the vacuum of the debate round

If I have to vote on strength of link or strength of impact weighing I will shed internal tears. That being said, you can make them if you really want, but supplement them with better weighing mechanisms.

Metaweighing, please, do it. Please.

Progressive Debate:

I hate theory, unless it's an actual abuse, it's an autodrop. I don't consider disclo to be real theory, paraphrase is dumb as well(unless they actually miscut the ev), most theory I hate, but ask before if you want to run it.

Tricks I will evaluate only against 3rd-4th year debaters, and never against SV framing or identity Ks

I really really really don't like Ks.

Framing:

Don’t be disrespectful when responding to it. These are serious issues that people care about

I don’t really like the respond in second case stuff, so if your opponents give me any response that is at all applicable for why they shouldn’t have to respond in second case I will default to not having to respond (ie time skew, education, fairness)

Please give warrants for why your framing is important. Many debaters think they can just assert a framing without giving reasons for why they particular framing is unique/ important. Please have good reasons.

Extra stuff:

I’m hearing impaired so please speak loudly, it helps you.

If you have any personal issues that impair your debating abilities in round, please let me know. I don’t want to vote against you for anything that is out of your control

I noted this at the top, but sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or anything that hurts debater’s safety will lead to an automatic loss.

If you can go the entire round without using your computer once, I will automatically give you a 30

Pulling up your evidence fast makes me happy

Tell me to call evidence, and I will. If there are competing pieces of evidence that isn’t resolved in the round I’ll call for them and evaluate them on my own terms. So it’s better to tell me why to prefer your evidence.

Post-rounding is dumb. I already submitted my ballot. If they are genuine questions, go ahead and ask.

Have fun. Debate was amazing for me because of the people I met, not the rounds I won so please please have fun. If you crack jokes, or mess around in round you won’t be negatively impacted, unless ofc it causes a serious disruption.

sunthar.tharma@gmail.com

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I welcome clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals

• Be polite to teammate, opponent and judge.
• Speak at a moderate pace; I can only understand what I hear.
• Connect the dots clearly and be organized; don't go down a rabbit hole with your link chain.
• Signpost throughout the speech, slow down when reading taglines, and provide an off-time roadmap.
• Emphasis on stock issues; I will vote for the most persuasive and concise team.
• Interact with opponents' arguments, don't simply extend your case.
• Comparatively weigh; make it clear why your argument is more important.
• Illustrate the big picture in the final rebuttals.
• Narrow down the key issues I should be voting on.
• This will allow me to make a straightforward decision.

Wish you the very best.

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 debated parli and PF in HS and currently debate APDA and BP.

A couple notes:

1. Don't spread, go as slow as you can. If I can't understand you without a speech doc then I won't flow. Note for Yale 2024: I am especially sleep-deprived today so I cannot process anything fast at all. Please go as lay judge pace as possible.

2. On progressive args: I don't have experience with them and don't really understand them, so if you do run them please explain them as you would to a small child, and I will try my best to evaluate.

3. 2nd rebuttal must frontline turns, and I'll look very favourably upon your arguments if you frontline defense as well. Similarly, while defense is technically sticky through 1st summary if it isn't responded to, I will look much more favourably upon your defense if it is present in 1st summary in spite of it. In other words, the more direct engagement from speech to speech the better!

4. Warrants are extremely important. If your evidence doesn't have a warrant I won't evaluate it. If you make good warranted responses to your opponents evidence and they don't have warranted frontlines, I will evaluate it.

5. Weighing is also extremely important. If you don't weigh then I have to weigh, but I'm not very good at weighing so you'll probably be disappointed. Therefore please weigh. Additionally, please be comparative in your weighing. Don't just tell me why your argument is important, but tell me specifically why your x argument beats your opponents y argument, and why that matters in the overall debate.

6. Although I do debate, I am only a small child (and a philosophy major). Therefore, assume (correctly) that I do not know anything more about the real world than a small child would, and explain arguments as simply as you can.

7. I am tech > truth, but I have a decently high threshold for proof. That is, from your evidence, you must prove all of the link level analysis that leads to your impact in order for me to buy it. An asserted impact that does not have sufficient analysis will not be evaluated, even if the other team does not respond to it. In addition, although I am open to voting on anything, the wackier the impact the higher the burden of proof is. If you are going to impact extinction, make sure that you provide compelling analysis that it could happen.

8. Have fun :) and best of luck!

Be Polite and respectful.

Do your homework, be prepared to send the evidence to support your statement.

Don't speak too fast.

Bullet points are helpful.

Don't use much debate jargon.

Have fun and good luck.

Hello, I'm David, a current Yale student.

Arguments: I am fine with most evidence, but please make sure to explain your arguments, and support any non-trivial arguments with evidence. Any unique/otherwise impressive arguments are greatly appreciated.

Speed: I am fine with you speaking fast, but please make sure that you speak clearly when speaking fast. Additionally, please make sure that there is a reason behind speaking fast; do not throw around a bunch of pieces of evidence without anything tying them together.

Hi! I'm Will, a freshman at Yale. I debated for four years for Bronx Science.

Since BDL assigns me to LD rounds, I'll preface by saying that this isn't an event I have competed in. I do flow, but I also appreciate good rhetoric. As long as you are a competent public speaker, you will get pretty high speaks. If you plan on running any nontraditional arguments, read it under the premise that I likely know nothing about it.

For PF, just debate like you would with a reasonable student judge. Talk pretty and make sense. I would prefer it if you collapse on something reasonable in probability.

I do not take cut cards (I want to see what the author said, not what you manipulated them to say), so just send me a link/pdf with what to control F for. If the debate is in person, I give an automatic 29.5+ if you do a speech without a laptop (the rationale being seldom anyone in the outside world delivers a speech off a screen).

Have fun! It's an exciting activity if you care a little less about results.

I am a high school English teacher and consider myself strictly a lay judge for Public Form. I never participated in speech or debate as a student.

If you speak too fast, I will not be able to adequately follow your argument, and this will not be to your benefit.

I appreciate a clear and deliberate style of speaking.

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

Hey everyone!

I’m a parent judge and don’t have a lot of experience judging.

For the november/december topic, I would say that I have enough knowledge on the topic to understand most arguments.

Please do not run any squirrely arguments.

I am more of a truth>tech judge rather than a tech>truth judge.

I vote off of what makes the most sense to me. If you want to win my ballot, then you need to explain your argument thoroughly. I would rather you spend all of your speeches explaining your argument rather than spend the whole time talking about your opponents case.

Weighing is important but Case is the most important thing in the round.

Please do not speak fast, a 600 - 700 word case would be preferable.

I do speaks off of how well I can understand you.

My preference is that debaters don’t speak too fast, because it is difficult for me to understand and judge. I also don’t like hearing big words or fancy debate terms. I prefer arguments that have clear logic, good reasoning, with supporting evidence.  I also prefer debaters to be polite to each other as it is just a debate so never say things that might hurt others.

Normal talking speed helps me understand you better.

I debated Policy, LD, and PF for 3 years and coached LD and PF for 3 years. Do your best and I will follow along - please let me know if you have questions.

---------------Most Recent Update: 3/30/2024 (NPDL TOC) -------------

TOC-Specific

TOC is the biggest opportunity for students to learn about different styles of debate. I expect y'all to try to learn. Refer to Luke DiMartino's section on "Ballot" for what I expect to occur when styles clash. Refer to Sierra Maciorowski's section on "Pedgogy" for my thoughts on technical accessibility. Refer to Sam Timinsky's section on "Lay vs. Flow" for my thoughts on tech v. lay in the debate community as a whole.

This is also the biggest opportunity for you all to connect with one another! For the first time in 5 years TOC will be in person so make friends with your competitors and be kind to each other! Feel free to reach out to me after the round for my thoughts more deeply on issues (or, after the tournament, if you'd like coaching (NYC is expensive :( )). I am a huge debate nerd so I love it when y'all have a good time and enjoy this beautiful activity. Have fun! :D

If you open-source your TOC prep you get automatic 30 speaks. Everyone should do it anyways....

No consistent coaching, but had intermittent mentorship from Trevor Greenan, Cody Peterson, Javin Pombra, Ming Qian, and Sam Timinsky. Philosophically similar to Esha Shah, Sierra Maciorowski, and Riley Shahar. Try not to pref both me and lay judges; splitting ballots at TOC leaves no one happy, and punting one of us will make both of us sad.... :(. I enjoy super techy intricate debates!

My pronouns are on tab now; please use them and your opponents correctly! Will drop speaks for first infraction, will drop teams after that.

Lastly, I've gotten really into Feyerabend. If you are interested in the philosophy of science (especially on topics about science/technocracy/AI/etc.), I highly recommend his work! There's an old Feyerabend K backfile I found that I can send to people who are interested!

Background

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently coach parli and PF. Coached extemp for 2 years and policy intermittently. Debated APDA a bit but wasn't my cup of tea. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches.

I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com). Tried to get K-DAs off the ground but didn't debate enough rounds for it to stick :( Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of my Small Schools K.

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots

- clever arguments make me very happy!

- no friv T, don't like tricks (although this I think has fallen out of favor since I've graduated)

- *not* a K hack despite my background. This is because I love Ks to death. If you are a *K debater* please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win. If you would like to get better at K debate, please pref me because I love teaching better Ks in parli :D

- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!

Preferences

These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation. If it was that important to your case, you should have mentioned it!

My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.

I evaluate the round systematically.

1) Who is winning framework? How should I evaluate arguments at all?

2) Who is winning the layering/sequencing arguments? According to the debaters, what order should I evaluate the arguments? Absent that, I default to my stated defaults.

3) Who is winning offense on each layer? When I hit a layer where there's a clear winner, I vote for that team

In other words, I look at layers from top to bottom (e.g. K > T > Case, Advantage 1 > DA 2 > etc., etc.) and as soon as one layer isn't a tie I will just vote for whoever is winning that.

Some things that always make me happy

• Clever plans/CPs: this usually means very good specificity that lets the Adv/DA debate get very intricate
• Ks with very specific links and interesting solvency arguments! Choosing fun solvency advocates is good for everyone!
• Theory with unique standards and approaches (e.g. going hard for reasonability or the RVI, standards like "creative thinking" or "framers' intent", etc.). I'm probably the most lenient tech judge on the underview issues in theory.
• Consistent sign-posting throughout the round. If the 2N says something like "go to the warrant on the second internal link on the Econ DA" I'm going to be really happy that you kept that up the whole round
• Collapsing to fun stuff (e.g. on weighing: timeframe, sequencing, etc.)

Defaults

- If it's not in the final speeches I'm not voting on it.

- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe

- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument: source w/ warrant > sourceless warrant > warrantless source > sourceless and warrantless (this last one isn't an argument at all).

- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli

- Signpost! If I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it!

T

- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness

- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI to function

- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))

- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous -- and being on the circuit for so many years I think I've developed a good intuition.

K

- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it

- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.

- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying

- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)

- If you read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.

- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you

- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side

- From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."

Tricks

Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round).

Speaker Points

Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round (i.e. I don't care how you say it as long as you say it). 25 or lower for problematic speech/behavior.

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules

- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)

- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary

- Add me to the email chain (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com)

Misc.

- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary

- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie).

- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)

- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone. For online tournaments, have texts in the chat right after you say them. We're online! It's so much easier to pass texts! (boomer grumblegrumble)

- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. Trust me when I say that it is too much work (usually) to protect against new arguments.

- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking

- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument

A number of years ago, I competed in Public Forum debate, and more recently, have competed in and coached moot court and mock trial. While I don't expect debaters to present as if in a courtroom, I do very much appreciate clearly structured arguments and guidance on how I should evaluate who wins. I am also usually able to understand fast-paced speakers, although I lean towards quality over quantity. Thus, I care more about how hard-hitting contentions/impacts are than how many you have. Still, I try my best to be flexible and easygoing, taking care not to impose my personal preferences on debaters.

I competed for four years in PF in high school across circuits, TOC, NSDAs, etc.

Will vote off what I am told to weigh/how to weigh it during the summary through FF. Make sure the summary is thorough and more than just dropping taglines as "extensions"!

Can flow fairly quickly but I can't weigh something if I missed it.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

Email: alex.ye@yale.edu

Background: I'm a sophomore at Yale who did four years of PF in high school, primarily on the local circuit.

Judging Philosophy

1. Speed: go as fast as you want but make sure your opponents are comfortable with it. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. Generally I do prefer quality over quantity
2. Evidence vs logic: ideally you should use both and they should complement each other. I think they're equally important but if it does come down to it I prefer strong logic over a piece of evidence
3. Frontlining: second rebuttal most frontline. Any argument not frontlined is dropped
4. Crossfire: will not be flowed, but doing well will definitely help your speaks
5. Weighing is the key to my ballot. Not just restating impacts but doing some comparative analysis. Do meta-weighing if there's multiple weighing mechanisms offered
6. Theory: not incredibly familiar, but feel free to run if you can explain it well! This goes for any type of argument
7. Creative arguments, nice catchphrases, humor, and style are always a plus
8. Be kind to each other!

Miscellaneous

1. If there's anything we can do to make the round more fun / accessible / comfortable, let me know!
2. Post-round me as hard as you want, that's how judges get better
3. If both teams agree, calling a TKO is allowed. If correct, the round stops and the winning team earns 30 speaks. Otherwise, the round continues and the team that called TKO gets -5 speaks

I have debated in some capacity at some point in my life, coached PF for Boston Latin School/did APDA in college. Tl;dr normal flow judge. Read anything as long as it’s not racist or bad.

my email is lemuelyu@bu.edu, please add it to the doc/email chain/carrier pigeon

At the end of the round, I will look down at my flow and do a few things, in the following order.

1. I will look at any framing, characterization, burdens, overviews etc. and evaluate the clash (or lack thereof) there. The winning arguments will serve as a filter for arguments in the round or as a way to determine the top layer of the round.

2. I will look at each individual contention or piece of offense within the round and determine what is won and how much it has won (i.e., how well it links to its impacts, a function of warranting, INTERNAL LINKS, uniqueness, etc). I will look at defense and evaluate whether it is terminal or mitigatory, and whether defense has been properly frontlined. Importantly, I will only look at offense and responses that are both extended and implicated in the final foci, and pulled directly from summary.

3. I will look at weighing. I often think about this as “layers” for the round, the side that best accesses (via probability, scope etc) the highest amount of the most important impact will win the round. This means weighing impacts over other impacts (i.e. death over poverty), and then weighing access to impacts/link weighing (i.e. more death over less death)

4. I will vote for the argument with the best link into the greatest amount of the best impact (not necessarily the greatest quantity).

some procedural stuff

- tech > truth but there is a threshold of believability for your arguments. if you claim that the sky is neon orange, you better have some EXCELLENT evidence for it. also, if you're argument is straight up racist, sexist, etc. i will not remain tabula rasa.

- I have never learned theory in my life, so I am not receptive to it. However, if you feel like running theory and get your opponent's ok to run it, you're welcome to run it at your own risk. Also have never judged a k

- light cussing is fine but full on spewing invective is not fine.

- I can generally flow relatively quickly but if you're gearing up to pull up speechdocs I will stop flowing. I will only flow what I comprehend.

- please don't be disrespectful. If you are disrespectful then I will be disrespectful to you :((. I don't care if you have fun or not, that's up to you. But don't make it unfun for other people.

- Weighing and warrants are important, they're what win rounds. Weigh before final focus and have a clear narrative. If no weighing is done throughout the round I will default to some stupid weighing mechanism like "who weaponizes the gay frogs". No one wants that. Also, I won't vote for an argument I don't understand.

- second rebuttal is required to at least frontline turns, otherwise they are considered dropped.

- Please signpost.

- Be as aggressive or passive as you want in cross, i'm usually not listening unless it starts to become whack. Aggressive =/= disrespectful. If both teams agree you can literally use cross as prep time if you want.

- Don't postround please, the round is over and you should have made it clear during round.

- If a card becomes heavily disputed in round, I will call it.

- If a warrant for an argument is not given, "this is not warranted" is a valid response.

- If the argument is well warranted and not empirical, "this is not carded" is not a valid response.

- if you concede defense to frontline a turn, tell me what piece of defense you concede and how it gets rid of the turn. Being able to wipe offense off my flow simply by saying “we kick out” is dumb.

- speaks start from 27 and go up from there. If I give you a 27 I think you were kinda poopoo. A 28 means you were aight. 29 means you were very nice, and a 30 means you were very very nice. Anything below 27 means that I think you're a terrible person

- Don't go more than 10 seconds overtime. I'll stop listening to what you say after that. Abuse prep and your speaks will tank.