Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

Speaker Points

What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

• ask if you have questions
• weigh during summary
• be a nice human during the round
• have fun 

I am currently the Head Speech Coach for The Bronx High School of Science. Formerly, I competed in info, extemp, congress, and PF for Apple Valley High School in Apple Valley, Minnesota.

Speech: To get my 1, you will need to do a few things. First, you should be memorized. Being on script often makes speakers less conversational and less able to do convincing tech. Second, your speech should be around 10:00 minutes. You should be using the full time that you are given to tell your story. I will not give the 1 to speeches over 10:30 if tournament rules specify that, but I will not drop you for going slightly over time. Third, if I find your speech to be offensive, I will drop you. This community should be one that is open to diversity and celebrating it, not turning people's identities into caricatures. I will write on your ballot what specific joke or character I found to be too offensive so you can hopefully change it. Next, I will be judging you on both your performance and the other things you do while in the room. I believe that good speakers have good ethos, and it will be difficult to give you a high rank if you were a bad or distracting audience member for your fellow speakers. If you are performing with a binder, feel free to use it as a prop. In fact, I love to see creative binder tech. In OO and extemp, I am looking for solid arguments backed up with research. I want to hear your citations. Outside examples and personal stories are welcome. In interp events, I want to see clean and creative blocking and very distinct characters. Basically, I am looking to give my 1 to good people who speak well.

Congress: Like in Speech, I look for good people who speak well. I believe that good debaters have good ethos, and it will be difficult to give you a high rank if you were a bad or distracting audience member for your fellow debaters. On evidence, I am looking for solid arguments backed up with research. I want to hear your sources. Excessive rehash will be penalized. Congress is a debate event, so I like to see clash. Ask good pointed questions and engage in the debate. That said, overly aggressive speakers will not rank highly. As parliamentarian, I will pay attention to the types of arguments and tactics you use throughout the tournament. I like to see logical consistency. For instance, I don't like to see debaters who advocate for isolationism on one bill and open borders on another.

Public Forum: I'll be honest, even though I competed in public forum for three years, I'm still a pretty lay judge. If you are going to speak quickly, then make sure you are very clear because I cannot vote for an argument that I do not hear. My favorite arguments are niche policy arguments that are impacted with regular people saving money or lives not being lost. I will not consider arguments that are not discussed in every speech up to the final focus. I will give arguments the weight that you do. If you say something is important, prove why. Arguments made in crossfire should be reiterated in speeches because I won't flow it. I base my speaker points mainly on how a speaker conducts themselves in cross-examination. I bring a lot of the mindset I have for speech into the debate space and I am looking to support good people who speak well. If you make clear arguments with impacts that link and are not a jerk, you will get high speaker points and will likely win the round. I will drop any team that I feel is being overtly or intentionally offensive. I don't need to see your evidence unless it is highly contested in the round and the deciding factor. Also, in cross, ask questions. You can't go on a rant and end it with "right?" and call that a question. Not gonna lie, I hate off time roadmaps; just signpost!

Good luck to everyone competing and I hope you enjoy your day!

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

I'm a freshman at Fordham University studying finance and law. I've debated public forum for four years; it's now my third year coaching. In the past, I've received two gold bids.

Preferences:

- second speaker must frontline

- pls don't just read impacts. I care about the links getting you to that impact, regardless of how dramatic you make the impact sound

- summary must extend (don't just say extend, reexplain the arg)

- use voters in FF

- I don't flow cross but make cross fun and aggressive for speaker pts

- If you take too long to get a card, I deduct prep time and speaker pts 

don't stress, have fun!

email: cherygada@gmail.com

Hi I am a flow judge 

Preferences (nothing that specific)

please signpost

2nd rebuttle needs to frontline turns and defense on any contention you're going to go for later in round

offense/defense needs to be in summary if you want me to evaluate it (extend case pls)

weighing should be introduced at the latest in summary but if there is no weighing till ff I will still evaluate it (it should also be comparative don't just say weighing buzzwords specifically tell me why you outweigh by bringing up your opponents impact not just your own)

I don't want to be in the email chain- if you want me to look at ev tell me to call it during your speech but make your indite/evidence comparison clear (I don't want to be having to do evidence work for you post round)

I like narrative debate/overviews in rebuttle and aggressive crossfires (since we are online make sure you're not talking over other debaters/in general being rude)

Please time yourself (speeches and prep)

If you make a Taylor Swift reference and cite it as "Swift (year) says" or "as Taylor Swift once said" I'll give you +.5 speaker point and probably like you more

Updated for 2023 TOC

Conflicts: Newark Science.

I’m Amit Kukreja and I debated for Newark Science in Newark, NJ for four years.

If it helps, I debated on the local NJ Circuit, the national circuit, and was a member of the USA Debate Team. I did PF for a couple of tournaments my freshman/sophomore year. I went to the TOC in LD my junior and senior year. I competed in policy my senior year at one national circuit tournament and received a bid in policy to the TOC and won the NJ State championship in policy. I debated internationally in worlds format for Team USA my senior year. For the better part of three years, I mainly did LD, ending out in octos of TOC senior year.

So, I've been coaching for the past 7 years and my views on debate have changed dramatically from when I was in highschool. The number one thing to understand about me is that I truly do consider myself to be tabula-rasa, meaning you can read anything, I simply value the execution of the strategy that you read. The ONLY caveat I have here is tricks; please please do not read some one-line bs, the other side drops it, and then you get up and extend it and win. If you make an actual argument and it's dropped, I totally get it - but the "resolved apriori" will make me very sad. It's not that I won't vote off it, but my threshold for rejecting it will be so low that as long as the other side says "No. Just No." that will be enough for me. I want to see actual debates!

Okay, besides tricks - do whatever you want. I've coached a ton of kids the past 7 years in phil, policy, kritiks, etc. and really enjoy judging all types of debates. I love a one-off K strat just as much as a 4-off NC strat, to me it's about the strategy in which you deploy an argument and how it collapses by the end of the debate that influence me.

I love impact turn debates, solid counterplans, strong internal links on disads, core assumptions challenged within links for a kritik - all is game. I do really enjoy CX, if you can be dominant there and have some personality, speaks will benefit and I'll just be more engaged.

Feel free to ask if any questions!

Email: akukreja227@gmail.com

Debate background in Policy, Congress, and BP. Judging, coaching, and/or teaching experience in LD, Policy, BP, PF, Parli, Congress, Expository, and Original Oratory. TLDR: I am a flow judge. 

First, as a heads up, spreading will be tolerated but not encouraged – you must be easily understood by the audience (i.e., have clear enunciation, strategic pausing, emphasis, and correct pronunciation) to be effective. 

Next, if you decide to run theory, please be aware that it is at your own risk. Often, "theory" is not run as well as it should be, and, as your judge, I will be voting on what is said (not what I can assume from personal experience). So, the main takeaway here is for you to do the work, make the argument structured, and be sure that you understand what you are running. 

Additionally, please avoid running arguments you intend to drop later; if you stated the argument, I wrote it down, and you should be using it unless it is a necessary "collapse". Please note that I will not vote on arguments dropped in Summary and then brought up again in Final Focus. Be sure to pull across (consistently) your strongest arguments rather than dropping one and bringing it back up in the last two minutes, which will make the round better and fairer. Therefore, prioritizing your arguments is beneficial. 

Please use CX strategically, and if you ask a question during CX, please allow your opponent time to answer the question. Moreover, being rude during CX will not give you a leg up within the tournament, at least not with me. The best competitors are the ones who can be respectful to their opponents and still end up on top. Hate speech will NOT be tolerated. We want to have a safe, inclusive, and educational discourse. 

Please keep in mind that I will be voting on what is on the flow and seeing who wins the major clashing points. I will be flowing every argument and am keen on keeping track of what has been said throughout the debate. Thus, please have, use, and keep a WEIGHING MECHANISM within your framework throughout the debate. Without this, I will be forced to decide what is most important in the debate, potentially resulting in a lack of benefit for you. Tip: Establish a "team line" to keep you and your partner on the same page. 

Although role fulfillment is essential when judging rounds, I value competitors who demonstrate and weigh why they have won the debate, with the most significant and most probable impacts, while meeting the previously established framework. The content of your arguments needs to be well thought out and supported by credible sources and sound rationale. Furthermore, the structure of your argumentation is a crucial component of success within a debate, so be sure that when you're "playing the game," you are doing it in a pragmatic way others can follow. 

If you have any questions during or after a round, please ask! Good luck! 

Hi :)

I'm Wajiha. (she/her) I'm a freshman at Lehigh U. You can call me by my name, however, during speeches I expect to be addressed as the judge. I have around 6 years on the national circuit in PF.

Please at least read the bolded parts of my paradigm before round and let me know if you have any questions :) Contact through wajiharizvi321@gmail.com

Please do not bring up a K, but theory isn’t bad as long as it’s well warranted. Definitely a good voter. Note: If you are running anything progressive, please email me a couple minutes before the round with your argument, an explanation of it. Also, please send me a case doc if you are running anything progressive. (That should be a given either way).

· add me to email chains

· Tech >> truth

· No ___ism

· Stay in speech times, won't flow anything overtime, however, I will let you finish your sentence.

· Prefer that you time yourselves and hold your opponents accountable. If that’s not possible, just let me know before round and I’ll time for you.

·I do not care for roadmaps unless its summary. Only give me a roadmap in rebuttal if you are second (tell me when you are going to frontline). Actually, Summary is the most important speech to me in a round (I'm generally a first speaker). If you mess up summary, your chances of winning are slim.

· I may ask for evidence.

· STAY RESPECTFUL. no disrespect of any kind will be tolerated.

· If you aren't confident in your own arguments, I won't be either.

~ Winning ~

· Anything I vote on needs a WARRANT in summary and final focus. You need to explicitly extend your warrant-link-impact for me to vote off of an argument (I need a clear narrative).

· Be comparative - show me you understand and consider their points, why yours are stronger, why they can be right but you still win. Don't just tell me how you outweigh on scope, magnitude, irreversibility, etc. If you do, please explain how exactly they apply.

· Clash with your opponents by refuting their central claims and focusing on why you win disagreements between your arguments.

· NO WEIGHING = NO WINNING, but that should be a given. I like to hear you start weighing as early in round as possible (rebuttal is never too early).

~ Preferences ~

· PLEASE COLLAPSE, I'm begging you

· 2nd rebuttal should frontline or it's dropped, though 1st summary still needs to extend dropped arguments.

· Nothing in cross will be evaluated unless you explicitly bring it up in a subsequent speech. Also, cross is valuable. Please don't waste it.

· I appreciate but don't require slower speaking, erring on more explanation. I can generally take speed as long as you speak clearly, but if something doesn't end up on my flow because you are going too fast, it will not be evaluated. If you are debating my first round of the morning, I strongly recommend you speak on the slightly slower side to ensure everything ends up on my flow.

· I think introducing yourself in speech is unnecessary and wastes speech time. If you like to do it go ahead, but I will be very unsympathetic if you go overtime. The same goes for obvious definitions (e.g. should) unless they add some kind of substance/are brought up later in the debate.

~ Speaks ~

- I will usually start from a 28 and bring it up and/or reduce from there. I will state explicitly why you gained/lost points.

- Lose speaks by going significantly overtime (more than 15s/finishing your last sentence), being rude/offensive, or saying you don't have any questions in cross.

~ How to GAIN speaks ~

- physically turn while turning an argument = +.5

- guess what my zodiac sign is correctly = +.5

- auto 30s if u give me a constructive, rebuttal, AND summary doc (all 3 for the auto 30).

I'll usually disclose and give brief feedback. Don't hesitate to ask questions either. Also since you've already read all of this, you should go follow my insta; @wajihahrizvi :))

Have funnnn

Please do not use progressive arguments in PF rounds; speak at an average rate and be nice to each other.

Have a good round.

Hi! My name is Yahvi Shah and I am a debater myself so I have some pretty definite things I look for in a round:

- Clear contentions backed up with evidence and analytics

- Organized, and fluent speeches

- Make sure you bring up in summary what you want to bring up in final focus

- Be polite and maintain manners

- Try to keep your own time if possible

- Be able to provide evidence when called

- Turns brought up in rebuttal need to be extended

- Lastly, remember to have fun! :)

Millburn '25 || add me to the email chain: awang3007803@gmail.com

--pf--

1) tech > truth

2) time yourselves

3) speed is fine as long as its clear, anything over 300 words/min send speech doc

4) warranted, carded > warranted, uncarded > unwarranted, carded > unwarranted, uncarded

5) please weigh, it makes my life easier; also please respond to weighing, it makes my life easier

6) not super familiar with prog (theory, Ks, etc.), but will evaluate

7) be respectful, don't be any type of -ist thanks; if not, L + <25s

8) make a funny math joke and I will boost your speaks :DD

Hello!

To start, I am a flow judge. While I will generally vote off the flow, public speaking skills and techniques influence my decision-making process. This means that spreading (to the point of being incomprehensible), monotone speaking, and general rudeness could affect my perception of your team in the round. 

For crossfire, make sure to stay on the side of assertive and not aggressive if that is your particular crossfire strategy, i,e. you can ask multiple questions in a row if your opponents let you, but do not interrupt your opponents when they are answering or trying to ask you a question. 

Time yourselves. I will cut you off after a 10-second grace period, and yes, even in the middle of your sentence. 

I will only evaluate arguments in the final focus if they were brought up in summary.  

Lastly, and most influentially for the round, make sure to have precise weighing. If you are not going to tell me why and how your impacts are more significant than your opponents in a meaningful way, you will leave the round up to the judge's bias.

Good luck!

Hi! I’ve debated for 5 years at Bergen and am excited to be judging your round! To contact me and add me to the email chain use my email brannonzee@gmail.com.

• In general, tech > truth unless your tech doesn't make sense.

• Please provide warrants and impacts for all of your arguments. I won't be able to judge an argument without a reason and something important to evaluate.

• Try to make analytics and logical responses!  Not every response needs evidence and analytics are an effective way to respond logically to arguments.

• Frameworks and overviews can be very convincing and helpful to me when evaluating.

• To avoid intervention, please weigh! It helps to clarify the back half of rounds and will certainly be something I am looking for.

• Send cut cards and make some way to exchange evidence prior to the round (email chain, card doc, etc). Please add me to the chain. Even though I won't look at cards unless I'm told to, it helps to centralize the evidence in the round.

• Time yourselves if possible but I will also be keeping track of time! 

• I will not evaluate new frontlines in 2nd summary, new arguments in FF, and new weighing in FF.

• Postrounding won’t affect my decision but feel free to ask questions after the round.

• Ask me before the round if you have any questions about how I will judge the round or my paradigm.

Debate is ultimately a game so play to win but also to have fun! One win or loss wont impact your overall career but every round can be a valuable opportunity to improve!