I am a lay judge who seeks to walk away with your opinion shared in a clear and concise manner (you will likely lose me if you speak any more than 200 words per minute).

1. I need to understand the topic (because I will arrive putting all preconceptions aside). The organization / flow should clearly communicate the topic and your key arguments while demonstrating that you have clearly understood and reviewed the topic.
2. Construct is important. Strength of argument can convince me and many times this means demonstrating you dug into the topic (depth of understanding the topic) supported by concrete facts / data.
3. Overall, a debate is a formal argument where both sides should conduct themselves with respect and polish. These are essentially soft factors encompassed under "presentation style" (and can be demonstrated in multiple ways such as how you address the other teams / your teammate; are you listening; are you considerate, to an extent, of others; are you using your time effectively, etc.)

I know all of you have worked hard to arrive at this forum. Good luck to each participant!

Name: Shifatul Ahsan Apurba

School Affiliation: BRAC University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: <1

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: >1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: >3

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: >3

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? - Not a coach

What is your current occupation? - Undergraduate Student

General Notes for speakers:

1. Speakers should be aware of the following information.

2. In particular, I appreciate teams that have a clear structure, can explain the implications of evidence effectively, and can correctly connect evidence to their arguments.

3. It's better if you describe the underlying trend/core problem connected with it while using proof.

4. It's critical to maintain your audience's interest. Judges' jobs are made simpler by direct comparison and weighing. In addition, you should demonstrate how your advantages exceed their drawbacks and how your advantages surpass your opponents'.

5. If you make a case for comparative advantage, be ready to back it up with evidence that connects directly to the evidence your opponent utilized.

6. You should be ready to explain why your strategy is a superior method, such as because it gets the job done faster/easier and requires fewer resources.

7. Please don't make any arguments that aren't obvious to a well-informed voter. This content will be devalued if you do this.

8. You must refrain from using any terminology that may lead to equity breaches.

9. We enjoy having a roadmap.

10. It's okay to speak quickly as long as you're clear.

11. As long as you're comprehensible, I don't mind what type of style you have. Different debaters have varying styles because of their different upbringings, and it is something I respect.

12. During presentations, I have a decent amount of energy. In the heat of battle, I jot down the most salient queries and the answers given to them.

I consider myself a flay judge. 

I'm not good with speed and don't prefer spreading.

I mostly look at how teams make their impacts, if the link and warrant aren't explained or extended throughout the round, that will heavily affect my decision when voting.

Don't be rude and show respect to each other throughout the round.

I graduated from Montville Township High School in 2018 and from Wesleyan University in 2022. I did PF for 4 years in and I now work for a non-profit that brings debate to public school students in NYC.

I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy. I probably won't flow from a speech doc. I'm fine with gamey things like kicking case and going for turns. I'm okay with some level of tech/progressive argumentation, but I don't want that to be a gamey thing--I probably won't vote for a shell/K that I think is read solelybecause the other team doesn't know how to handle it.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.

First summary does not need to cover defense unless second rebuttal did a good job frontlining. First summary should include turns if you want them as offense, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense (unless they were frontlined in second rebuttal). I really, really appreciate collapsing in both summaries. And, of course, weighing.

Debated PF for 4 years. He/they.

TLDR: I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated (and properly extended) link chain into the best-weighed impact.

General Philosophies:

- If you have questions about my judging philosophies before the round, or about my decision after the round, don't be afraid to ask. Just be respectful.

- I'm pretty tech > truth but, like all other judges who call themselves tech, I'll have lower thresholds for response if the arguments are under warranted.

- If you're going to be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. in round, you're definitely getting under 25 speaks and I'm going to be inclined to vote you down because you've created a fairness skew in the round by making the debate space potentially unsafe for your opponents.

- READ CONTENT WARNINGS AND PROVIDE A WAY TO OPT OUT ANONYMOUSLY. If you're unsure whether something requires a content warning, better safe than sorry.

- I respect that y’all have a lot of content to get through and that sometimes it takes a few extra seconds, but I’m 100% not going to evaluate anything that’s 10+ seconds over time.

- I won't call for cards unless a) there's contradicting evidence that neither team resolves or b) I'm explicitly told to

Other preferences:

- I require full extension of your offense in summary / FF. You don’t need to refer to the specific card names unless it helps you, but you definitely need the uniqueness (if applicable), warrant/link, and impact.

- Collapse plz. It makes both of our lives so much easier. This goes for defense as well; Extending, backlining, and fully implicating 1 piece of defense will always be better than blippily extending 3 responses through ink.

- Weigh your links. Weigh your impacts. Weigh your DAs (in rebuttal, preferably). 4 buzzwords without any comparative doesn't cut it though.

- Speed: If you're going to read faster than 250 wpm, please make sure your opponents are okay with that and be willing to send speech docs. I literally will not be able to catch most of your arguments if you're going significantly faster than 300 wpm, so spread at your own risk. Definitely add me to the email chain in the event that you decide that you’re unable to speak at a reasonable speed. spencerburrisbrown612@gmail.com

- Evidence: I'm fine with paraphrasing, especially in rebuttal, but if your opponents call you on evidence that is abusively paraphrased, your speaker points will get tanked. I am also pretty receptive to paraphrasing theory.

- Cross: This isn't summary. Don't frontline their responses to your questions, just ask follow-ups. I also don't flow cross, so if your opponents make a concession, please implicate it in the next speech. Bonus points if you make me laugh.

- Rebuttal: Please warrant and implicate each response. If that means you have to read slightly fewer responses, that's totally okay. Quality > quantity any day. 2nd rebuttal should frontline all turns (or just weigh against them, that's chill too), and respond to all defense on the contention/link you're collapsing on (yes you should collapse in 2nd rebuttal).

- Summary/FF: I will buy sticky defense (responses from 1st rebuttal that 2nd rebuttal dropped not extended in summary but extended in FF) so long as it hasn't been touched at all, I don't think sticky turns are a thing so if it's something you want me to actually vote off of, make sure it's in summary.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I'm fine evaluating theory, although I'd prefer teams only read theory in the event of a serious violation like misgendering or neglecting to read a content warning.

- I don’t really have strong opinions about disclosure. That being said, if you’re a large program reading disclosure theory against a small program, I don’t really know what to tell you except that it’s pretty clear you don’t actually care about the argument you’re reading, and I’m not inclined to vote for it.

- I'm slightly less experienced with K debate, so please explain stuff, but I'm absolutely willing to vote on them, especially if they're being used to call out offensive language/rhetoric.

- There's a 99% chance I won't know how to evaluate your high theory, and a 100% chance I won't evaluate your tricks even if I understand it.

I started debate judging in 2020.

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

I am a lay judge with limited experience.

Don't go too fast. Clarity is always more important than speed.

- I'm not very familiar with debate speak. i.e "magnitude", "turn", "Uniqueness". You can use these terms, but try to explain what they mean in the later speeches.

- I will be flowing, and I will look at the arguments that each side presents when deciding my ballot.

- Second summary is too late to bring new arguments.

- No new arguments in final focus. Just make the debate clear in final focus, and explain why I should vote for you.

- Weighing is very very important. Please weigh so that I can look at the arguments more holistically. 

- I don't flow cross, but I definitely listen to 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.

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for 4 years, NDT and CEDA octofinalist, and 2021 CEDA Top Speaker. Started by doing traditional policy args, moved to Kritical things, and ended as a performance debater with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). started debate in college as a novice and worked my way to Varsity so I do have a pretty good understanding of each division. Also, I'm a black woman if that wasn't obvious or you didn't know lol

I’m here for the petty and I stay for the petty I will vote on the petty but there is a difference between petty and mean I won't vote on mean it makes me very uncomfortable

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is first and foremost a game, but it’s full of real people and real consequences so we should keep that in mind as we play even though it’s a game that definitely has real-life implications for a lot of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate and yes they are about the debate so I would pay attention to it my face will often let you know when I vibing and when I’m confused

Speaker points: --- totally subjective I try and start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person’s performance in a debate ---- in the debate, it becomes a trend to ask for higher speaks which is fine but if your gonna do that you best not suck or I will automatically give you a 28.3, also I feel like you need a justification for asking for those speaks outside of a speaker award --- I try to be nice and fair here

Speed: Don’t risk clarity over speed I’m not straining my ear to make sense of mus

Dont go far when the debate is over I tend to know my decision when the debate ends

If you are gonna email questions later pls let me know so I can keep my flows I often throw them away I wanna be to help but its hard for me to answer your questions after the fact if I don't have my flows

K's:

Debated a lot of K's, read a lot of K’s as a debater I don’t know every K in existence but with a thorough explanation and well execution, I will probably be fine.

I have a larger threshold for the K because I expect you to explain the linked story and the alternative with warrants so don't assume that just because I know the theory means you don't have to put in the work for the ballot. Links should be contextualized to the aff - please don't restate your tags and author but pull lines from 1ac/2ac. I would also warn against just running a K because you think I'm only a K debater (it’s obvious and annoys me just do what you do best)

I like performative links, not personal attacks. With performative links, just make sure to give a warranted analysis as to why I should vote on it and what the impact is.

K aff's:

Love them is one of my favorite parts of the debate I enjoy the creativity of these!! I do prefer K aff's to be in the direction of the topic or make some attempt to include a discussion of the resolution, but if you are not, then at least give me a warranted explanation as to why you have chosen that route. Those that are on the topic of the resolution, have a clear impact and solvency story. Many times, debaters will get so caught up in the negative arguments that they lose sight of what is important...their aff! So, make sure to keep a storyline going throughout the entirety of the debate.

When you get into FWK/T debates, extend and explain your counter-interpretation. What is your model and why is it good? That plus impact turns = an easy ballot from me.

I think a lot of K teams assume reading your aff is good in debate is gonna do something very big on K aff’s having a reason on why their aff in the debate is good.

FWK/T:

It's a strategy that is read against K aff's, it's a strategy tbh I enjoy and am more sympathetic to than most would think. My personal outlook - debate is a game but it has real impacts that can help or harm certain individuals. While it is a competitive strategy, I do not think it is an excuse to not engage the affirmative because most of the time, your lack of engagement is what the aff will use to link turn the performance of reading fwk.

PSA - fairness is not an impact... at best, it’s an internal link. Unless the aff has no justification for their aff, then you got a good chance of getting my ballot by reading fairness. I find it most compelling when you prove in round abuse.

I think a TVA is a must. No, it does not need to solve the entirety of the aff because that is neg ground, but it should be able to solve the main impacts they go for. Lastly, defend your model of debate and explain why it would be better for the debate community writ large. If you are only focusing on one round, then explain why that is better.

Das/ CPs:

Lmao these are things that exist in debate too…

Das I would say make sure you have a clear and warranted link story and awesome impact calc.

And CP’s I’m open to all CPs kinda think of CPs in the context of having a net benefit and how does the CP solve the aff? It's also nice if your CP is competitive...

Theory:

I think theory is procedural make sure you explain very clearly and slowly what the violation is and why that matters...if you are going to go for theory, I expect the 2n or 2a to spend a good amount of time on it which means not just 30 sec or 1 min.

Policy Affs v K:

Engage the K!Too many times policy teams just write over the K with their fwk thinking that is the only work they have to do but it's just like debating a DA or CP. Do the link work and the more specific answers you have to the alt, the better position you are in. Don't just say Perm DB or Perm aff then alt, but really explain what that means and looks like in the world of the aff. I think you do need fwk to get to weigh your aff but that is all the fwk will get you which means don't forget to extend your aff and the impact story. A really good way to engage the K is to prove how the plan not only outweighs but resolves the specific impacts.

How to get better speaker points with me

Be nice, be funny, be personable

Organized docs and speeches

Mention Scandal/Olivia Pope whom I love in your speech I will bump your speaks like .4

Ohhh and for the black folks ask for speaker points and ye shall receive lol I might not be able to always give you the ballot, but I can give you a 30

A 2NR/2AR with judge instruction is literally the freakin best thing ever

Jenny Crouch

School: Brentwood High School

I AM DEFINITELY A LAY JUDGE.

I have never participated in, or judged, any Forensic activities other than PF debate.

When judging tournaments, I am most generally following the earliest guidance I received, which is to think in terms of which team is most persuasive with their aff/neg argument. Crucial to this is whether I can effectively understand the speaker. Many students are so focused on time & getting in maximum words, that they are very difficult to understand & they undermine their own research. Do they back up statements with factual references? Do they immediately offer cards with resources cited? Do they respond to the opposing team's arguments with thoughtful, relevant data, or do they revert to an unrelated item in their own "script"? Do they stay focused on the resolution, or follow tangential topics that muddy the question at hand?

I do take notes as I am listening to each round. These are often truncated due to the speed of the speaker. I include as much information as possible in my ballot comments.

I am a parent judge and not a professional but I have judged a lot of tournaments.

I do flow and I do weigh crossfire.

Please state your contentions clearly. As in contention, one is ...

I request that you speak clearly and coherently. If you are speaking so fast that I don't understand you, your points are lost on me.

Please let me know which team is taking prep time and tell me when you start.

If you don't mention a point in the summary speech I will assume you dropped it.

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

I’m a parent judge, and this is my third year in debate.

1. Please be clear about your warrants and impact (signpost).

2. Talk clearly and at a normal speed.

3. Keep track of your own time.

4. Off-time road maps aren’t required but are appreciated.

5. I will not judge off cross-ex.

6. Weighing is important to me.

7. Your summary and final focus should be paralleled. I will ignore any new points brought up in either and speaker points will be lowered.

8. Don’t be rude, disrespectful, or passive-aggressive to opponents.

9. Anything said that's homophobic, ableist, racist, etc. is going to result in a "L" for your ballot and lowered speaker points.

10. Have fun!

I am a parent judge.

Timing:

Please Time yourself (rounds and prep)

Speaking:

- Please speak at a reasonable pace and be clear.

- Please be courteous

1. Keep Calm.
2. Speak Loud And Clear.
3. Maintain Proper Body Language.
4. Keep The Topic On Track.
5. Respect your Opponents

I debated in PF in high school for four years.

Please stick to the spirit of PF by not speaking excessively fast.

I find arguments that are realistic to be more compelling than long link chains that hang together by virtue of obscure evidence quotations.

Hi! I'm a former speech and debate kid myself. Events I have personally competed in at least once include Parli, PF, Prose, Poetry, Storytelling, POI, Impromptu, DI, Inform and, Extemp. I also have non-tournament experience in LD, Congress, Inform, Radio, and ADS. My main events were PF, Prose, and Impromptu so many of my perspectives will be from that angle.

Just in general don't be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic or anything diminutive towards any other class of people. Also, be respectful during cross. I will grade down speaker points for any hostile behavior towards your opponents.

For Debate Specifically:

• Signposting: DO IT! Every contention, subpoint, impact, turn etc. should be signposted. If I don't know what you're talking about/on I won't write it down. I allow and encourage off-time roadmaps (just taglines or "go down aff then neg")
• Speed: I ask that you don't sacrifice legibility for speed. If you're talking so fast that your point is unclear or you have to take pauses/breaths in the middle it isn't worth it.
• Impacts: I vote on impacts so make sure to clearly state them and weigh them with an appropriate weighing mechanism
• Cross/Questions: I don't flow cross/questions so if you make a point, bring it up in your last speech.
• Timing: Please time yourselves. I won't interrupt you once your time is up but I will stop flowing.
• Evidence: Use it for everything (debate form allowing). My email is elliexqhoward@gmail.com for any evidence-related email chains.

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).

Hi, I am a parent judge who has some experience judging. I would classify myself as a lay- judge. I have a vast understanding of this topic and I can understand different view points.

-- I am looking for arguments that have a logical basis

-- Please make sure that you understand your arguments and that you do not make arguments that you can't justify.

-- I feel that debate is about bringing your logic to another level so if your argument is not clear or lacks logic, I will not vote for it.

-- Please do not spread because it will result in you losing speaker points

-- Please do not use debate jargon

--Make sure to extend your arguments and impacts into summary and final focus or else I won't evaluate them.

--Weighing is super important to me so make sure that you do it

--Do not be rude to your opponents and make sure you give them a chance to speak.

If you have any specific questions, please ask me during the round! Good Luck to you all!

I am a relatively new parent judge.

I would prefer that you speak slowly and understandably. 

Please weigh and use good evidence ethics throughout the round.

I will judge based on how well each team argued and defended their point.

Lastly please remember to be kind and if you fluidly integrate a Breaking Bad reference into one of your speeches I will give you +.5 speaker points.

DO NOT SPEAK FAST, AND DO NOT SPREAD

I am a lay judge, so try to explain everything well, and clearly. You can time your own speeches, but I will also time; you must stop as soon as the timer goes off, not one second later.

Don't be disrespectful.

Greetings to All,

I am a fairly new parent judge to the Public Forum debate. Few things below:

- Keep an eye on the time.

- Present in an orderly fashion.

- Speak slowly and clearly. If you are too fast I will miss what you are trying to say.

- Respect each other.

- In case you are planning on sharing your evidence please share them with me too.

- Relax and have a great round.

I wish each one of you all the best for todays tournament.

Wishing each one of you a Great Round and Happy Debating!

** Assume that I am a flow judge, but lay on the topic

If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to be in summary and final focus.

I appreciate world comparisons, weighing, and logically explained arguments.

I do not like speed. I will not flow your arguments if I do not understand what you are saying.

I will decide your speaks based on the clarity and content of your speech.

In general

***Before you start your speech tell me which side of the flow you are starting on, and sign post clearly as you go along.

***Don't be a jerk.

***Please do not shake my hand.

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Debate Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

be decent to one another (this includes your partner). bigoted language is an auto-drop. put me on the email chain.

Paradigms for PF, PD, LD, and Parli below.

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

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for the K. i'm a good judge for theory.

Meta:

I firmly believe "progressive debate is exclusionary" is wrong, and far too often a line wielded in bad faith to preserve traditionalist norms that prioritize "slickness" of debaters over the intellectual rigor of their arguments. I believe "Progressive debate" has no stable definition, but rather refers to arguments that stray from normative expectations of PF debate, including important discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird the debate to begin with. This article from Stefan Bauschard offers some excellent insights.

Housekeeping:

Please pre-flow, and ideally, create the email chain >5mins before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs must have full paragraphs, and include highlighting or otherwise clearly denote what words you say from the card (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. I often take longer to decide than most judges, so the more tech/admin time we can trim, the better.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one. No preference for room setup, however if there is a rocking chair in the room, I reserve claim to it.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant. Critical cases don't necessarily need to be read slower than conventional cases, but reducing your speed usually generates more "rhetorical heft", which helps your cause.

If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. I trust that debates will be conducted in good faith. Do not abuse that trust.

How I flow:

I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep. Therefore, author/tag extensions are insufficient, even when I know what warrant an author/tag extension is referring to. I don't judge-extend arguments, however I will cross-apply arguments made when they are clearly responsive to multiple flows. I flow overviews at the top of the first contention addressed in the speech. I flow weighing at the bottom of the contention being weighed. If you start weighing in rebuttal, I suggest weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.

How I evaluate:

A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first; Most theory and IVI debates fall under this category. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.

Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. Example: "Structural violence first" framing with probability weighing is dissonant with structural violence read as a link to a nuclear war impact -- rather, structural violence should be read AS the impact in this case, resolving both the framing and weighing mechanism, creating a more cohesive argument. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework for how I evaluate the round is resolved, I move to the contentions.

When both teams' frameworks agree, I look to the link first, specifically for answers to these questions: HOW does affirming/negating the res trigger the impact they describe? (qualify your link story) Is there an empirical precedent for the link, or is it speculative? If speculative, I move to uniqueness and ask, what conditions of the status quo produce the link, and how? (qualify the uniqueness). These questions lend me to favor probability in weighing debates.

When frameworks conflict, I ask the same questions as above, however I find myself obligated to consider solvency. Examples: If the hypothetical endorsement of the aff prevents WWIII, but cannot solve back existing structural violence, I lean aff. If the hypothetical endorsement of the negative probably creates better living conditions for marginalized people, but exacerbates to already-existing carbon emissions, I lean neg. Turns can be remarkably effective in conflicting framework debates. The ballot as a token of endorsement is also central to my view of K debate in PF. More on that follows.

If neither team is able to secure offense in the round, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo independently triggers an impact.

Notes on certain arguments:

Topical (normative) Cases - Truth is determined by the flow, unless the claim is patently false or discursively violent. The link/link chain and solvency tend to be the most vulnerable components of any given contention. I find myself to lean toward favoring probability weighing. Defense needs to be extended or conceded. I will only judge kick if the other team doesn't take advantage of the misstep. Turns are great, but be decisive and kick case if you're going for it - its a great demonstration of your technical skills.

Topical (critical) Cases - Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen. Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like? Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link. Engaging a K with your own K is a great way to ensure everyone's speaks go up regardless of my decision.

Non-topical criticisms - Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm. Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one. Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice! Look at the "theory" section below for additional thoughts that might be helpful.

"Off-case" Criticisms - I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal. If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).

Topicality - I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s). I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. T is an a-priori argument, and if you go for it, it should be the whole FF. T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.

Theory - PF is still a very young format, quickly growing in popularity. Debaters do not set the the meeting agendas for the community's governing bodies. Therefore, theory rounds constitute a means for students to determine the direction of the event from the grassroots level. Theory arguments are your way of arguing what should be the broadly held best practices for the activity. "Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory. I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. Some theory things is believe: Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.

Evidence:

Cut cards are and ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence. I will joyfully vote for the lowest threshold paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team. If you genuinely don't know what I mean by "cut cards", please tell me before the round and I will explain this (nicely). Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.

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

Policy:

3 rounds judged 2022-23. I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.

Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. Policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just shoot me an email.

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

2 rounds judged 2022-23. Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.

You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.

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

Parliamentary:

4 rounds judged 2022-23. I did not enjoy any of them.

change my mind! :)

Debate:

I have participated in debate for more than 6 years, including public forum, LD, and Policy Debate. I am open to all kinds of arguments and speed.

Clarity outweighs speed. Quality outweighs quantity.

Just a reminder, the purpose of debate is not only to present your arguments but to engage with your opponents.

Speech:

I have experience doing speech as a kid and experience of being a speech judge.

Keep mind of the time management, clarity, and volume.

Competition is never about only about winning and losing, its more about what you've learned.

As a judge, I evaluate debaters based on the following qualities:

1. Present well organized speeches so that audience can follow the arguments;
2. Respond to opponents’ questions or attacks and have strategies to effectively defense his/her own arguments;
3. Utilize evidence effectively;
4. Respect your opponent.

Wearing masks in common spaces like the cafeteria and hallways is a considerate and safe thing to do. Ask me if you need one and please correct me if you see me without one. I am alright with not masking in the debate round, but feel free to request we wear one if you’d like.

Background

Please call me Sim, you can use any pronouns. I am a student at Johns Hopkins University studying Public Health and Africana Studies. I’m also a researcher in Asian American studies. My policy debate competitive experience was solely on a local circuit for a tiny program. I have accomplished nothing notable, and I learned debate entirely by flowing rounds online – this does mean I trust my ear and keep a neat flow. I am currently the head coach at Georgetown Day School.

General

Add [georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com] to the email chain. You can direct other inquiries to [slow@gds.org]. Do not contact either email for speech documents. If you are a student, please do not reach out to me on my social media.

The Asian Debate Collective is a working group of Asian debaters across all formats that studies Asian-based critical theory and collaborates on arguments. We have active programming during the summer (practice rounds, lecture series with guests, etc.) and work throughout the season together. If you are an Asian student that would like to join our community, apply here [tinyurl.com/aidwg23] by 4/30/23. You can view the program's roster here.

I will vote for anything that is justified with good debating. I’m an ideologically opinionated person, not so much as a judge. Read strategies that you are confident in and enjoy. You will win my ballot with clear warranting and superior strategy, not by reading the content you think I agree with.

Debate is a communication activity, not a document compilation race. Besides ensuring that you are not cheating and have ethical evidence, I will not care for your speech document. This means you cannot insert things – you must read them out loud. I will always prefer specific analytics and judge instruction over uncontextualized cards. I think many arguments are silly and can be beaten without evidence. This is something I think most debaters are not brave enough to do, but it is a style I reward and greatly enjoy watching.

Being a technical judge does not mean that I am algorithmic and just look at the most conceded thing to vote on. Concessions are not inherently meaningful – if there is a damning drop and you only speak a sentence on it, I will be disappointed. Exploit these mistakes and implicate them well. You should be building a world in rebuttals and comparing your worlds. If I don’t know what your world looks like, I’m not voting for it. If I don’t know what the link story is, what your impact is, and how you resolve anything, I cannot vote for you. Is this arbitrary? Sort of. I think I’ve made my expectations for worldbuilding clear, and I just won’t vote for something that isn’t comprehensible to me.

I used to have something along the lines of “I will not vote for racism, sexism, etc.” in this paradigm, but I have grown to realize that is not particularly useful. You will not know what I find problematic or what my boundaries are. You do not need to know. I will put it in your hands to explain what is x-ist, debate it out, and tell me what I should do about it. There are many silly and outrageous arguments, they should be easy to beat. If you cannot do so, I will not feel comfortable giving you the ballot. This is an obligatory announcement that I reserve the right to stop the round for any reason – I have never had to do so, please do not be the first to make me.

The vast majority of rounds I’m in are clash rounds. Second to that are kritikal debates. I have been in a few policy throwdowns and some rounds that collapsed to theory. I don’t know if this means anything.

K Debate

Kritikal debate has gotten wildly reductive, and I feel like these rounds are where you see the most judge intervention. I am getting the impression that judges do work for the identity-based kritik to soothe racial guilt. That is not me. I need a reason to vote for you that is not just the fact that you are an oppressed identity. Reading the kritik in a way that essentially devolves to “vote for me because I am a part of x-identity group” will induce an eye roll from me. I also need a reason to vote for the kritik that is more than the status quo is fucked up – there needs to be a link to your opponent’s strategies and content. I will not reward you for being the first person in the round to inform me of the reality that the world is messed up. Do not read any of the above as me being a hater of the kritik or identity-based arguments, I just think that recently they have not been deployed in great ways. The kritik is a beautiful argument that brings some of my favorite literature into debate. Read the literature and I think that you will find a lot of it has been misrepresented, go against that wave.

K v K rounds get frustrating when they devolve into which oppression is worse/came first/etc. Have a clear theory of power and if you are the neg, you should explain the tensions between your thesis and theirs. You should have a link to their thesis or mechanisms – winning a root cause claim and then saying their starting point is wrong is not necessarily offensive. If you win the root cause claim, you must explain how it implicates affirmative solvency. Your method explanation needs to be more than throwing the words ‘sociality’ or ‘relationality’ at me like that means anything. Tell me what you do and how you solve anything – the more specific you can be, the better. Method explanations are sorely lacking which makes me easily persuaded by presumption.

I find myself voting for framework against k affs when the aff cannot give me a workable model of debate. Not extending an interpretation or any sort of model and purely going for impact turns in the 2ar is unlikely a winning strategy. If you choose to do so anyway, you need to be clear about why I can vote for your thesis even though it was not testable or debatable. You cannot just assert their framework is x-ist just because it does not include your 1ac as is, you should offer more specific problematizations of their case list and the ideology behind the interpretations. Clash is an intrinsic good. Tell me why you have a better form of engagement. I have no preferences for impacts, just explain and weigh.

Policy Plans

Maybe it is just the NATO topic (yucky), but I find myself clueless about how these affirmatives operate and their mechanisms. Solvency explanations are lacking, do better! Make sure you have good and updated internal links. A lot of the time it feels as though they can be beaten with just analytics.

I like case turns the K/DA moves.

Disadvantages

Zero risk is a thing. Like with policy affs, a lot of the cards here are just bad and can be smacked down with analytics. Have a clear evidence comparison and tell me why yours should be preferred over theirs.

I _love_ politics disads.

Counterplans

I will judge kick if you do not tell me otherwise. I think the status quo is always an option and the affirmative is expected to prove itself preferable to the status quo.

A winning counterplan needs to be specific on how it resolves the aff and affs need to do a better job of telling me what nuances in the 1ac the counterplan just misses.

Counterplan and competition theory are confusing and hard to resolve. Please just have a clear model and explanation of what positions your interpretation defends and weigh why those debates are good.

Topicality and Theory

I do not have very many preferences here and not a lot of my rounds come down to these arguments. Please flag the violation clearly and extend it throughout speeches, otherwise, I’ll vote on a shoddily explained but extended ‘we meet.’

Extend and warrant if I should reject the team or the argument. This is very important.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Your format is so quirky. I do not know what truth testing, permissibility, paradoxes, or tricks are. I do not know what Kant has written. I do not want to know. Stick to straight policy or kritikal arguments. If not, explain like I am a parent judge and I will adjudicate with that lens. I am not going to go back and read your documents to teach myself your stuff.

Public Forum Debate

Sorry, you’re unlucky enough to get me. I think this format needs to be abolished. If you want to read “progressive arguments” and debate rigorously, switch formats.

If you do not have cards with proper citations, you paraphrase, or you do not send a speech document that contains all evidence you are about to read before the speech, I will immediately vote for your opponents and tank your speaker points. If both teams are cheaters, I will pretend I am a parent judge and evaluate the round like it is a speech event since none of you want to act like debaters. None of this is a joke. I have done it before; I will do it again.

If you opt for an inefficient form of evidence exchange where you call for a card after a speech and make everyone wait until their hair has turned grey for you to find it and send it, I will be running everyone’s prep time. At once.

You’re not speed-reading robots. Make jokes, show your personality, and have good vibes. Toss in League of Legends references if you play the game. GLHF.

Let me keep it short. I have never been a coach nor a debater. English is my second language.

I view a debater as a presenter to convince a graduate committee or a business team on why his/her thesis or project should be endorsed or prevailed.

No matter what topics are, I do not take any consideration of their Pro/Con or Aff/Neg. 

I judge by the following:

- Clarity of your points to support your position is important. This incudes both information clarity and speak clearly.
- Whenever you state numbers and facts, I take particular attention to whether you have references. The party provides more precise and comprehensive references, I score the party higher on the specific point.
- I value your own thinking and work, such as your analysis of the information you collected and connecting the dots. I especially value if you can frame them in a way that I can follow and understand.
- I judge how you counter the other party’s points. Avoiding or missing the points is a deduction.

Please feel free to ask me questions anytime. 

I'm a parent judge who brings a multi-cultural and international sensibility to my role, a perspective also informed by more than 25 years of practice in the field of law. With clients that have included hi-tech companies, venture capital funds, and a governmental agency, I have always sought a fact-based and science-driven outlook that values substance over style and rationality over rhetoric. May the best debaters prevail!

I have judged almost every form of debate possible. I have been involved in US policy debate since its invention. You must respond to the other teams arguments. Flowing is good. You be your best debater. I will try and be a fair judge. I am very familiar with the PF topics. Be nice to your opponents and your debate partner.

One last thing. I do not think PF debate has the capacity to provide space to have a good debate about arguments relating to "disclosure" and "paraphrasing" as a reason to lose a debate. It is an international event and those particular cultural norms are not accessible for everyone across the planet of debate.

I will vote off of the flow. Please make sure to include any arguments you want me to vote off of in both summary and final focus. Your final focus should basically write my ballot. That being said, your attitude will affect your speaker points. Try to be nice to each other in cross-fire; get your point across, but don't scream.

Most importantly, be confident, and have fun! You have prepped a lot, and you know what you're doing. Good luck!

Background:

current affiliations: Delbarton School, NJ; NSU School, FL

Past affiliations: Delbarton School, NJ (Assistant Director -- 2020 - 2022); Duchesne Academy, TX (Head Coach -- 2017 - 2020)

Other: Summit Debate Senior Staff (2018-2022); NSDA PF Topic Committee (2020-Present)

Pronouns: he/him/his

Email Chains:

Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.

Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.

Please add 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) uschoolpf@gmail.com & 3) nmengisteab@gmail.com to the email chain.

Evidence:

Your choice if you want to paraphrase. However, I require you to cut cards for all evidence referenced in the round. These are properly cut cards. If you don't cut cards, you might want to consider striking me. Cut cards promote better research and debate ethics. No cut card = won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

1.) I look at the round through an offense/defense paradigm. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense.

2.) Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible).

3.) Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.

4.) I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything you have me flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).

5.) I will disclose and always allow accommodations for debaters.

Progressive PF:

Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).

Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do* ... Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text) paraphrasing is bad, trigger warnings and anonymous opt-out when there are specific mentions of graphic depictions are good, and arguments with non-graphic depictions should have a content warning but still be debated.

*note -- if you read an excessive number of offs that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are without a doubt awful and annoying. I'll still evaluate it but run at your own risk.

Misc:

Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you go fast (please don't spread please), but will say clear if you go too fast and ask for a doc; speaker points usually range from 28.5-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

cosby '21 fsu '25

put me on the email chain jackmerkel57@gmail.com

3 years pf (Qualled to TOC, States, Broke at many Nat Circuit Tourneys), 1 year NFA-LD (Qualled to NFA Nats)

important stuff

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are

i will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise.

please read an opt-in cw for any argument that may contain sensitive content, if you don't and a team reads cw theory I honestly don't see myself ever not voting for it. when in doubt err on the side of reading one.

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are bad

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability) i also look to framing at this step if there is any and apply that as well. also on weighing, the most convincing and best weighing is link-ins and prereq weighing, this prob comes before any other generic mechanisms

evidence

paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing. if someone calls for ev and u send an 80 page pdf and tell me to control f something and read around it im not evaluating your ev. its really not that hard to just copy and paste that paragraph and highlight what your reading.

prog stuff

theory and ks are fine, I didn't run them in HS but I have gotten a lot more familiar with them in college ld so I would probably be a good judge if you want to try/test prog args. just please dont run trix, i hate them.

gendered language>disclosure>paraphrase>friv

for theory i default to competing interps and no rvis

ks are fine, just try to have a link to the resolution

most importantly i want to make debate an inclusive space where everyone can have a fun and educational time so please let me know if there is anything i can do to make the space more accessible

Hello. I am a relatively new judge but I have a solid understanding of the Public Forum structure:

Tech > Truth

I prefer logical, analytical arguments.

Cards should be offered within a minute after request. Debates should not revolve around disproving evidence. Lastly, make sure to be on time. Rounds should be complete within the allotted time.

Another thing that will negatively affect speech would be debating out of speech time, and stealing prep. Please be prepared to time your own speeches. If you call out the other team for not abiding by Public Forum rules, I will take this into consideration.

Be sure to signpost as it is extremely hard to keep track of contentions, especially as a lay judge. Arguments must be extended in every speech.

Please do not dominate any crossfire round. If you ask for too many follow-up questions, speaks will be docked.

As always, no homophobia, racism, ableism, or sexism of any kind will be tolerated. Have fun!

Lay judge, first time judging.  I was a dentist in India. I read up on the topic.

This is my first-time judging, so keep this in mind. I will not know any technical terms or concepts in debate. Please time yourselves and your opponents.

I will take notes and try to evaluate in an unbiased manner based on the arguments presented in the round.

Please speak slowly and make sure I can understand you. 

Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

Please keep in mind that I am a lay judge and I have no experience as a debater. Please speak clearly and don't use too many debate jargon.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. Please speak SLOW and CLEAR. Because we are having our tournament online, it is very hard for others to hear what you are trying to say. If I don't catch your words clear, you will end up losing a few points. (I'd rather have you not finish your speech than mumble rush through the entire thing.)

2. Please send me your case beforehand so I can follow along. This will give you an advantage during the tournament. Please send them to n.hyunsun@gmail.com .

3. Once you enter the conference call, please turn ON your video and mute your mic.

4. Please time yourself. I will not warn you about your times unless they are very over. This will heavily impact your speaker points!

5. I don't give oral feedback usually so please wait until the ballots are posted for your feedback :)

6. I primarily focus on the structure and organization of the speeches. If I find it difficult to follow along and messy, I won't be able to favor your side! Please be organized!

7. I highly favor quantifiable evidence over others. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

*** Do not yell into the microphone. If you speak too loud, it's going to sound like you are mumbling. If you speak too quietly, no one will hear you!! ***

*** any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behavior will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :) ***

Lastly, Have Fun:)

I did Speech and Debate during my time in High School - focusing on Public Forum Debate and briefly Congressional Debate. After high school, I attended Emory University studying Business Administration and Philosophy, Politics, and Law. I'm now working as a Business Consultant. I'm excited to be back in Speech and Debate as a judge.

In debates, I value three things: sound logic, respect, and communication. A quote was given to me by my HS history teacher, "It's 0% what you say, 100% what they hear." Keep that in mind.

Public Forum debate notes: The comments below are written with policy in mind. But the principles apply. I would suggest reading the whole thing but specifically the parts on qualification of evidence, education and accessibility. What I hear and record by hand on my flow sheet is the official transcript of the debate.

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Overtime shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qaulified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

I debated public forum for 6 years from middle school to the end of HS at BC Academy.

Please read this paradigm carefully before so that we don't have delays. Assume that I will always be ready.

Zoom Specific: UPENN people pls ignore :((

My campus's wifi is trash, I do advise you to disclose your case to me at roseoh1004@gmail.com before the round actually starts. That's right -- 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

I know the online experience is quite different. If you have any technical difficulties hearing the other side please do not be afraid to intervene in the round by saying "clear".

I don't care if your camera is off or not if your wifi is also like mine but turning it on is recommended to replicate the in-person debate experience to the largest extent

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

General:

Disclosure Related

I encourage informal disclosure - I believe that it not only helps me understand the round better, it helps small schools fare better in this Public Forum blood bath (which did not exist too much in my time LOL)

Please email me your cases to roseoh1004@gmail.com IF you feel comfortable.

General

My debate terminology is a little rusty. Progressive strategies might throw me off but I will try to understand and follow them to the best of my abilities.

I'm tech>truth, so make sure to 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)

If you're saying something problematic/homophobic/anything along those matters, I automatically give you a 20 on speaker points

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

If it takes you more than 5 minutes to get the card, you don't have the card (actually Yale requires me to be patient a little, so I'll just deduct prep time until u run out lol)

Preferably time yourselves, but don't abuse this - I'd rather focus on the flow/content

I will keep track of prep though, seen too many debaters tryna pull a fast one on me

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

I consider defence sticky in the 1st summary

2nd rebuttal should frontline offence

extend in SS to be considered in FF I will not extend for you

impact weighing 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 build bridges or connect messy points together to flesh out what happened in the round nor like to artificially make clashes for debaters

Speaks: {I think UPENN doesn't place any restrictions haha ;)))}

I know that even the smallest speak differences break your chances of even being in the top decile or even quartile, so I will be nice!

If you make me laugh, you get an automatic +0.2

+0.1 for a pun attempt, +0.2 for a good pun attempt (my definition of good is skewed quite subjective)

+0.2 for a NCT (Neo Culture Technology) reference - only the real ones know heh

MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN!!!! DEBATE IS NOT THE END NOR THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD

Debated for two years in Public Forum at Half Hollow Hills High School East. I'm currently a senior at Binghamton University,

I'm probably tech > truth, meaning I'm not going to vote on unwarranted and poorly contextualized arguments.

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary (exception is that defense is sticky). I know some judges are ok with new weighing in final, but I'm personally not a fan of it.

Weighing arguments is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of link, clarity of impact, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I want to see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Hello! I competed in public forum for 4 years on the local and national circuit at Kennedy High School (2015-2019).

include me in the email chain- robineai@uni.edu

tech><truth

While I do find debate to be strategy based, I prefer arguments that follow a logical well thought out narrative.

There are a couple of things to do to win my ballot:

1. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing.

2. Extend claim+warrant+impact

3. Extend the cleanest piece of offense

4. Weigh. It is important that you weigh because if you don't I am forced to choose what I think is important and you lose control over my ballot

Flowing

- Signpost! At the end of the round I evaluate what is on my flow so it is important to be clear where you are making arguments.

- I prefer teams to not just say "extend Smith 19"- you need to explain the evidence and what that is directly responding to

- I can handle fast PF speed, but be aware of how fast I can write- speed is not always an advantage if I am unable to write it on my flow in time (also if you do choose to speak faster than normal do not exclude the other team)

Rebuttal

- I prefer well thought out articulated responses over a bunch of blippy responses (quality>quantity)

- I really like carded responses, but don't card drop excessively

- For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet

- For 2nd rebuttal it is your choice what you do strategically. It would be smart to do some frontlining, but I have no personal preference

Summary

- For first and second summary I would like you to extend responses on your opponent's case in order to extend it to final focus

- within this speech it is important to collapse and make grouped responses

Evidence

- I will call for a card if the other team calls for it and it becomes a point of discussion within the round or it you bring up a specific card that is very important to winning your point

- If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card we will have to move on and I will cross that card off the flow

K's/Theory

- I have no experience in LD or Policy so if you choose to run this type of argument you need to dumb it down for me. Personally, I would prefer a traditional contention over this type of argument.

Other Things

- pre flow before the round! please don't delay

- I am open for discussion after the round, but please be respectful

- I understand rounds can get heated and I like respectful humor and sassiness, but do not be condescending or rude to your opponents

- Have fun!

Arguments must be clear, persuasive and understandable.

1. PLEASE SPEAK SLOWLY!!

2. Be polite in cross

5. Overall, just make smart arguments, while maintaining a good presentation. Please be respectful to your opponents.

6. If you add me to the email chain I will bump up your speaker points by 0.5, if you send cases I'll bump it by 1.

7. I'm a traditional parent judge.

my email is roongtafrisco@gmail.com

Hello, my name is Anya Saponja. I am a senior at The New School where I study both Philosophy and Politics. I have only judged a handful of times. I am looking for clear and concise arguments delivered in a slow meter.

Liz Scott She/Her liztoddscott@gmail.com

Experienced debate parent judge, I suppose best characterized as a "fl-ay judge", however strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

Preference for polite engagement, please be nice. Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude, yelling is not convincing.

I have not judged kritiks but am familiar and supportive of progressive debate.

I will call for cards and review evidence only if it is contested by your opponent.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong.

All prep is running prep, IE, I will start my timer when you say you have started and stop it when you stop regardless of if you tell me you are “taking 30 seconds”.

Please remember that most judges are volunteers and listen to the same material all day, often crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate for the judges so don’t discount the round, it can definitely have a large impact on subsequent rounds and the momentum of the debate, however I don’t flow through crossfire so if an important rebuttal or turn comes up in cross, make sure you raise it in second speak and/or rebuttal/FF.

I have judged a few PF debate tournaments in the past and so I do have some experience.  My daughter has been debating for just over two years now at a competitive level and so I am familiar with the layout of the rounds in PF debate. I am comfortable with medium level speed, not too fast, and please speak clearly to ensure accurate delivery of the content. I will flow the debate and make my decision mainly on the strength of the contentions, you win on the basis of evidence & weighing in the final focus. I expect both teams to be respectful of each other. I have a background in Finance and my daughters attend Horace Mann and Bergen County Debate Club.

Hello,

I am a parent of a debater and this is my first year judging. It would be helpful, if possible, for people to speak at a slower pace. In terms of my background, I work in the data analytics field having worked for large software enterprise companies and e-commerce outfits, mining data for insights that a broad range of an audience, from the uninformed to the well-informed, can digest and find actionable.

thank you!

John.

Matt Stannard
Email: stannard67@gmail.com

TLDR: Do whatever you do best, don't be afraid to try new things, and have fun. SPEAK CLEARLY no matter how quickly. Tell me what to write down. I need to know how your alternative works--how it works in the material world. I like the game of debate and value the ethos of good and fair debating. I like to reward topic research. Be a good person.

Who are you, Matt Stannard?

High school and college policy debater for 7-ish years. Full-time debate coach for 16 years coaching and judging mainly policy debate but also other formats. Juris Doctor, full-time organizing consultant, part-time coach for several programs, summer institute instructor, frequent judge.

What arguments should or shouldn't we run?

My general assumptions are: Policy, critical, and procedural debate are of roughly equal value. I am not the state. Life is good, the topic is good, topic research is good. Debate should be challenging but fair. I won't vote for classist, racist, heteropatriarchal or sexist, ageist, ableist, or colonialist arguments. Those are ethical limits, but I will and often do vote for arguments I simply intellectually disagree with.

I don’t like to read a huge amount of evidence after debates, so the more you tell me during the debate, the less chance I’ll reconstruct arguments afterward in ways you might neither predict nor agree with.

What style and rates of delivery should we aim for?

Debate in the style and at the speed you're comfortable with. Please speak VERY CLEARLY and enunciate more than you would during a normal conversation. Please watch me occasionally to see if I'm getting it all down. I may sometimes ask for clarity.

What theoretical defaults should we be aware of?

I live and work at the intersection of grassroots social movements and policymaking. I really like (and need) solvency arguments for/against the kritik alternative that resemble solvency arguments for/against plans or counterplans--at least insofar as they engage with the material world where change is being claimed. Who, what, how, where. I am familiar with how movements and advocacy groups work so tell me how the alt works (or doesn't).

T and other procedurals aren't per se "genocide," but the political and social implications of particular interpretations may be reasons to prefer or reject those interpretations.

I won't kick a counterplan for you to test the status quo: if you don't want to be committed to it in the 2NR, explicitly kick it.

Aff, you needn’t necessarily have a plan (although your opponents might convince me otherwise) but you need a clear statement of advocacy. Neg, it should be clear how your advocacy is a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy.

I have started to selectively flow CX --not as part of the argument flow itself, but more to help me understand teams' argumentative commitments, definitions, distinctions, and what will be dispositive in the decision.

What preferences about in-round technology should we be aware of?

Prep time ends once the email is sent.

All tech should be set up pre-round; remediation of tech comes out of your prep.

File transfer time is grace time, but don't steal prep or I'll steal your speaker points.

What ethical views of debate should we be aware of?

Be chill to each other outside of speeches.

Don't cheat.

Please ask pre-round or via email if you have any specific questions that aren't addressed in the above.

Hello. I am a parent judge with one year of experience.  This is my first year as a varsity judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can understand and digest your points and arguments.  Speaking fast won't help you, and it will just frustrate me.

I am influenced by data and credible evidence supporting your positions.  That being said, I'm skeptical if you toss around evidence without explaining how it's relevant, if I suspect you don't understand the evidence you're citing, or I think you're cherry-picking.  I might ask to see evidence you cite, and actually read it.

I think sign-posting is great!  Help me to choose your side.

I'm impressed by teams that debate well while being respectful of their opponents.  I'm put off by rudeness and disrespect.

Good luck and I look forward to judging the round!

Hello, my name is Qibin

This is my second year and fifth tournament judging, I am a lay judge.

A few preferences:

1) Please don't rush/speak too fast

2) I may ask to see the evidence you cite

3) Please signpost clearly so I know what arguments you are addressing

4) Please weigh in summary and final focus

5) Please have clear extensions of your arguments so I can understand them better.

Let's have a fun and educational round!

I am a parent judge who has spectated over 50 hours of PF training. I prefer quality over quantity as well as clarity over speed.

I am more likely to vote for arguments where you explain why X causes/prevents Y rather than just “Y happens on our side”. Please make all your arguments clear.

I focus more on your arguments rather than how well you speak, but this is only when I can clearly hear your arguments.

Have fun!

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.  

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

I am a parent judge that is new to debate, aka lay judge which means I am not familiar with debate jargon.

Please do not spread, it does not matter how great your argument or evidence is if I cannot adequately understand you.

Signposting is very important for me to follow your arguments.

Lastly please be nice and courteous to each other.

I am a parent lay judge and have been judging for the past two years.
This means try to keep the debate at a conversational speed.

I have a business and marketing background.

Whilst I will do my best to take notes, I do appreciate sound logic and constructive evidence.
It would be beneficial for you to hash out your link chain and narrative throughout the round.

Please engage with what your opponents say in their speeches and not just ignore it.

Above all, please make the debate an inclusive space and be respectful to your fellow debaters.
Remember to have fun!

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

• I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
• If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
• if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

• I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

• I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
• There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

• norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
• gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
• norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

• A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
• most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
• in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
• Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
• Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
• Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

I believe that high school debate and forensics should be a learning and growing activity for students. Winning is fun but competitor growth is more important.

I appreciate that there are different styles of debate and that many competitors try several different debate styles. We have different forms a debate for a reason. As competitors, it is your responsibility to know what makes those different forms similar and what makes them different. Make sure you are debating in a manner that respects and highlights the unique aspects of your debate form. Don't try to mash styles together by using techniques associated with one debate style into one where it isn't practiced.

With that being said here are some items that will give you more insight into how I judge:

*I am a flow judge.

*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.

*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers). This should be a brief overview of what you plan to cover. Example: I will be covering my opponents case and then my case. This is all the detail I need so I can be on the right flow.

**Theory debate - I don't like it. We are here to debate a topic not a theory - many of you are preparing for careers that will demand you provide argumentation and rebuttal and that can't happen if we aren't dealing with the topic.

*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you - if I can't flow you can't win. You will know I can't flow your speech because I will put my writing utensil down.

*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash of claims not the clash of attitudes.

*If you provide a weighing mechanism/framework/value and value criterion PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until your last speech.

*If you are using a prepared speech PLEASE make sure you have practiced it before the round to ensure it is as fluid as possible. Also make sure you are pronouncing all names and words correctly.

*I am not a fan of Ks although I am learning more about them and why they can help a debate round. My preference is topic debate. If you can link your K to why your opponent can't access their impacts then I am all ears.

*I am a traditional judge/coach.

*In Public Forum:

**If your case is one or two lengthy contentions with no subpoints and lots of evidence PLEASE make sure that you are tying these to the resolution. I prefer clearly labeled contentions and subpoints. It is just easier to flow.

**Please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended. I place a lot more weight on what happens in these four speeches than the first four. You are the one debating. You tell me what the major arguments are. Don't make me figure this out. Listen to each other during this time. I LOVE when Final Focus has clash!!!

**Crossfire is an important part of the debate. I don't flow it but I do listen. If you want something that occured during crossfire to be weighed in the round you MUST bring it up during the next speech.

*In Congressional Debate

**Please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as new arguments for the side you are supporting. Prepared speeches are nice but if you are any speaker after the first aff/neg, please provide some argumentation with sound evidence. Make sure you have a good balance between old and new arguments.

*In Big Question

**Make sure that you are debating the topic!!

*In Lincoln/Douglas

**Please see note above about value/value criterion. This is 100% how I am going to evaluate the round. If each sides presents different V/VC our round centers on these and not your contentions unless you are also tying your V/VC to your contentions which would be AWESOME!! I would prefer to hear a debate on the topic but if the round goes here let's make sure we are really showing the importance of the V/VC.

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, send me an email and I’ll be more than happy to get back to you on those as soon as I can!

if you need clarification on a ballot OR IF I JUDGED one of your rounds and you didn't recieve ANY FEEDBACK (esp with virtual tournaments it happens since I flow externally and copy-paste) please send an email ASAP to [ jvictorino0.forensicsjudge@gmail.com ] - I archive my ballots routinely!

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - if you don’t see specific comments in your individual section (due to round pace), look for three asterisks/ three eights like: [ ***or .888], I’ll post the entire flow with [ *** or .888 ] at the end of key arguments per speech. Flow Criticism will be in parentheses +&&&, looking like this (comment)&&&

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

I live in the National Capital Area. I have some background as a debate judge. My son considers me a “lay judge”. I like logical arguments, but that doesn't mean it has to be a common argument (in fact, I like a variety of arguments because it spices up the debate).

For your debate, please do not “spread”; speak at a normal pace so I can understand. I listen to cross, but I do not vote what happens in cross unless you can’t defend case. Since I am listening to crossfire, it will play a role on how many speaks I will give you. I will give feedback and explain why I voted for a certain team after the round is finished. If I am judging an online debate tournament, I expect debaters to send me a speech doc for constructive AND rebuttal before you begin speaking to yang_wang1@hotmail.com because it helps me follow arguments easier. (use attachments, NO google docs please)

Time your opponents’ speeches and feel free to interrupt when time is up. Please stick to the allotted time frames. I prefer off time road maps and please stick to them. Please be respectful to your opponents at all times or I will deduct speaks. I take notes. Good luck.

I'm a first time judge, and will try to make the best judgement as I can.

Please time yourselves and your opponents, while I'll also use a timer as backup. 

My decision will be based on your statements, supporting facts and the logics to connect statements and facts. I'll make my decision in  an unbiased manner solely based on the arguments presented in the round.

Please make sure you speak clearly so that the opponents and I myself can follow. 

Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!

Please don't make me think I'm in a policy round. 

I am parent judge and has judged so far 7 tournaments.

Speak clearly, no spreading please

Like well thought out arguments which are logical and make sense.

If I flip a coin and it lands on its side (which apparently happens every 1/6000 flips for an American nickel), you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.
(This is generally for PF debates where there's a coinflip built into the format. I judge lots of parli now so sorry to any parli kids I confuse! Feel free to check out the CNDF format tho LOL)

I did PF and BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio+datasci in college so please don't expect me to remember all the IR/econ drama that goes on in the world :') If someone mischaracterizes a country's/individual's involvement in some global issue, it's better to call it out yourself than to assume that I'm aware of the mischaracterization.

I took bits and pieces of this paradigm from other judges' paradigms that I really like. Credit goes to Lauryn Lee and Kyle Kishimoto.

@ Parli kids: everything in this paradigm that isn't PF specific (cards/evidence, CX, etc.) applies to you.

Content

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

I'm unfamiliar with theory and kritiks and I don't like voting off them. I am not the judge you want if you plan to run either of those.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference in the overall decision.

Warrants + Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. This also means that I prefer warrant comparison to evidence comparison. Evidence comparison should happen when the warrants directly clash and there isn't much of a way to evaluate them, or one side's evidence just sucks. But in general, comparative analysis is awesome and one of the best ways to win.

Saying the word "extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus.

Weighing needs to be comparative and specific. This means your weighing has to directly interact with the opposing team’s argument – you should be answering the question “If all of their arguments are given to be true, why do I still win the round?” Because of this, I don’t really consider attacking the truth of their argument as an effective weighing strategy – weighing assumes the arguments to be true. I also think more teams should do meta-weighing – why is your form of weighing better than another? Why is your argument that wins on probability stronger than theirs that wins on magnitude?

I listen to cross-ex but I don't flow it. If you get a concession from CX, it doesn't matter until I hear it in a speech. CX ends as soon as the timer goes off, and to pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer, or I'll drop your speaks.

Style + Misc.

If you’re gonna go Lightning McQueen on me you need to be clear and signpost properly.

I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is not an invitation to be rude.

If it takes longer than 2 minutes to find your card, I'm not counting it.

Debate is great :) I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback or you can email me at elizzhou@berkeley.com