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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Be polite!

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

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

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

Feel free to ask me any questions or clarifications about my paradigm at any time! To email questions: kberg@loyolanyc.org

**My biggest preference is to be a good member of the round. No phones during rounds. You could be the best speaker or performer but if you spend the rest of the round being disrespectful to your fellow competitors, I will take that into account.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

I coach Congress at Loyola School in New York City.

Many of the style notes for policy (below) apply to Congress as well.

1. A note of personal preference: if I see you on social media, snapchat, tiktok, instagram, etc. during a round, I will drop you and report to tab as necessary. I will almost always share this at the beginning of the session. This is a firm, irrevocable line for me and I don't care if you're the best speaker in the room.

2. If you are joining Congress from another form of debate - remember that there are no email chains, judges do not have your sources, and there are no cards. Cite, explain, and analyze all your data accordingly.

3. PO - please ensure all your tech is set up before you start. I would prefer you take the extra minute to get yourself in order rather than rushing and spending the rest of the session scrambling. A smooth and precise PO is better than a quick and messy PO. Please share your preferred method for tracking speeches, recency, etc. and keep it fully available throughout the entire session. Have a plan in case there is no wifi/wifi is bad. The time to learn how to PO on paper is not while you are in the middle of being the PO.The PO is always in the running for top rank and has earned the 1 on my ballot in the past. The PO has also been dropped from my ballot should disaster strike.

4. When I competed, girls were discouraged and dismissed in Congress. I am very happy to see that this is changing, although it is not perfect. I expect all chambers to be run equitably with respect shown for all speakers.

5. Be mindful of the cycle of debate. Presenting a rehashed constructive on the sixth cycle of debate is not productive. Your goal should be furthering the quality of the debate.

6. Cross examination matters. It is as much a part of the debate as any speech. Bad faith questions reflect poorly on you. Be mindful of how you speak to one another.

7. Love a good crystal however, don't just recap the round and sit down. Extend your side's arguments and refute opposing arguments. Offer your own analysis. Weigh out all the impacts to their fullest. A good crystal should be the cherry on top of a debate not just an intermission.

8. I like to see a variety of speeches. Only giving sponsorships or crystals does not show me diversity in your debating abilities.

9.I do not look kindly on yelling during your speech and especially during questioning. Unless another speaker has personally insulted you, your family, or said something offensive, there is no reason to yell at another speaker. I especially do not look kindly on male debaters yelling exclusively or primarily at female debaters.

10: When I am judging (NOT parliamentarian): I am not in charge of the rules. I do not control the recency. I do not control the PO. Coming up to me and complaining about your recency, that your motion didn't pass, that the docket isn't what you wanted, that the chamber didn't vote in your favor, etc. is futile and does not endear you to me if you persist. If you have issues with your recency, check the sheet, ask the PO and/or parli. If you aren't prepped for all the bills on that session's docket, that's something out of my control.

POLICY/CX/DEBATE PARADIGM:

I coached policy debate at Success Academy. I did not compete in policy as a student.

A note for high school JV/varsity competitors: my paradigm is geared towards the kids I coached/judged - middle school novices. However, a lot of this applies to high school novice debate and debate in general.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. It is as much a part of the debate as any speech.

4. 99% of T arguments are not convincing and unless the aff is wildly untopical, I will not vote on it. I will almost always default to reasonability, unless you can give me a fantastic reason not to.

5. Spreading is only as good as your clarity. If you are incoherent, you are not making an argument. Four excellent arguments is stronger than eight okay arguments. I err on the side of what serves the most productive, educational debate.

6. Speak like you care about what you're talking about. Inflection will boost your speaker points. Studies have shown that communication is 55% body language, 38% tone of voice, and 7% words only. Keep that in mind as you give your speeches.

7. Above all else, be kind to each other. Demonstrate respect in the way you listen and respond to your opponents' arguments.

8. Any kind of "death good" or "rights bad" argument will get you an automatic L. I'm not here for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. or any other oppressive frameworks of thought.

9. Argumentative clarity > technical flair. Debate can be elegant. Complex topics can be explained in concise language. I will often defer to the team who demonstrates the most effective understanding of the subject matter. Kritiks are welcome only if you deeply understand them.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters.Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions will also resonate with me. I listen to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debate from you and your peers that includes refutation of previous arguments and crystallization of arguments rendered. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging.'

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind toward the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.

Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.

T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and am always good for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!

Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am getting very old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. Just tell me where to vote.

And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting a novice, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for.

You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.

---

PF

A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.

Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coached. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks-- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor.

I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.

I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair, knowledgeable, and efficient and you'll rank.

I am a debate coach with 20 years experience, and have coached all speech and debate events.

Congressional Debate:

In round, I reward strong research/evidence, solid understanding of the topic, and advancing the debate by bringing points and clash together. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Different speeches (authorship, refutation, weighing, etc.) have different purposes, and accomplishing the purpose of each speech is more important that battling in a waiting game, always trying to get the last speech. Every argument and claim should be effectively supported with warrant and data from evidence. Questioning should be won by smart questions and answers: CX should not be a shouting match or full of interruption.

Presiding officers should maximize time given to speakers and questioners, and minimize PO narration as much as possible through direct communication and strong word economy. POs should keep things fast, professional, fair, and within the rules. The debate session should maximize debate time allotted.

For questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

LD:

I am a traditional judge. I judge what's on the flow. Truth and tech both matter. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Framework and Value/criterion/standard are very important. I'd rather hear arguments grounded in real world data in the literature on the topic, but also am open to philosophy arguments. I am not a fan of theory that would end up substituting for debating the actual topic. Please don't spread. It's rarely necessary. If opponents or I call for evidence, please provide it right away- there shouldn't be delays related to evidence searching. Don't call for evidence too often or without good reason. Please be cooperative, civil, and professional in CX when you are questioned.

For email chains/questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

PF:

I judge what's on the flow. Truth and tech both matter. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Framework and warrants and data are very important to me. Every argument should be clear, warranted, and supported with data/examples/evidence. Keep cross ex civil and polite, and an equal sharing of speaking time. I prefer to hear grouping and strong weighing in summary and final focus, so definitely collapse the debate to a few key issues instead of covering a ton of different thoughts in a line by line style. If opponents or I call for evidence, please provide it right away- there shouldn't be delays related to evidence searching. Don't call for evidence too often or without good reason. I strongly prefer arguments grounded in the literature of the topic, with data and real world examples, over efforts to avoid debating the topic, such as disclosure theory or other theory. Public Forum debate was created to develop skills related to communicating with the general public, and that intent should be embraced by PF debaters. No need to spread in PF at all.

For email chains/questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

EXTEMP:

I am a traditional extemp judge. I like clear and straightforward organization. I reward strong research/evidence, solid understanding of the topic, and strong well supported argument. Use evidence accurately and truthfully. Every argument, idea, claim, should be effectively supported with warrant and data from evidence. Ideas and evidence should come together smoothly and well to answer the overall question. Body paragraphs don't need an agd- if they have agds, they should enhance the body paragraph and link perfectly to it without muddling the flow of the speech and without taking tangents. Cross examination should be won by smart questions and answers.

For questions, my email is dchildree@hotmail.com.

Im new to judging Pf dont speak too fast and read very clearly.

She/Her

Hello everyone! I am a parent judge for Congressional Debate, who has a master's degree in government. Below are a few of my preferences so you know what to expect.

PO-I highly value GOOD POs. Good POs will be ranked at least in the top three or even higher if you are exceptionally good. However, with that said as soon as a chamber starts being held up because you do not know parliamentary procedure, you will start moving down significantly in my rankings.

Clash- Pretty much all speeches after the author/sponsor should have some form of clash in them and by the third or fourth cycle you should move away from introducing new arguments and focus on weighing impacts and synthesizing the round.

Decorum- Please speak slowly (keep wpm on the lower side) and in a manner that is understandable to the common person by not using complicated terms (if you are, define the term). In the round you are roleplaying a member of congress, so please do not reference yourself in you speech as being in high school or a teen because that defeats the whole purpose of congress's roleplaying aspect. Please refrain from suspending the rules in abusive ways as that will immediately move you down in my rankings.

Intros- I value concise, clear, and funny intros that get me hooked at the beginning of your speech. Please do not use generic intros and instead use intros that are unique to the piece of legislation being debated. The more interesting your intro is, the more likely I will be able to remember you.

CrossX- Don't talk over each other. I know you only have thirty seconds to ask your questions, but please allow your opponent time to answer the question you have given them. Avoid screaming/yelling and calling people names during the round, but specifically in cross. If I catch you doing this, you will be significantly moved down in my rankings.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you want to watch tiktok on your own time, that's fine with me, but please refrain from doing it in the middle of a round.

I look forward to hearing everyone's speeches. Good Luck!

Hello! I am Geetha Dwarakapuram. I am a senior technology manager at Bank of America. As for public speaking and giving speeches, I speak on a daily basis in front of large groups of people as part of my job. I am also a volunteer at a local youth Toastmasters club. I have been a parent judge for the last four years both online and in-person. My daughter was a National Circuit competitor in Congressional Debate for five years and my son is an active competitor in Congressional Debate.

Congress: I like to look for concise speeches that support the argument with evidence contradicting the opposing side. I also look for senators and representatives that mention others to enhance their ideas. I highly frown upon rehash but enjoy listening to speakers who engage the audience with their take on the bills. While your speaking style and delivery are, of course, an important part of the overall package, it is congressional debate after all, so I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better arguments higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't providing something new or doesn't have the same quality of evidence. For presiding officers, I mainly judge if they do not stick out to me during the session and run a smooth and steady round.

Speech: I look for eye contact and a powerful voice when talking. I should be able to understand what you are talking about and like to be engaged throughout the whole speech. I enjoy speeches that have a memorable ending, or " end with a bang" as I like to call it. For dramatic speech events, I should be able to feel the emotion that you are trying to show with your voice. Time limits are something I look at when deciding scores.

Background:

Competed for all of HS (2018-2022) mainly in Congress and World Schools in high-level national circuit elimination rounds. Got 15 bids in Congress and 7th spoke NSDA in World Schools. Now I compete in collegiate parliamentary debate (APDA) where I'm 6th place team of the year and I coach/judge congress.

If you have any questions want further feedback, etc. you can ask me after round or reach me at garigipatipranav@gmail.com. If you have any questions about my paradigm ask me before the round

Please read warrants and analytics, cards do not act as replacements for these.

World Schools/Australs:

I value replies far more than the standard world schools judge. I prefer the debaters to direct engagement and rebuttal themselves, although I'm fairly willing to intervene against stupid and unproven arguments. Burden of proof is also far higher in this event than any other. Even intuitive arguments have a high burden of proof. Organization and clarity is also really important for speaks.

Parli:

• All offense MUST be in the last 3 speeches. Defense is sticky, but I like it to be extended. Win the most important clashes to win – don’t just say links/warrants exist, compare and weigh between competing links/warrants. The further an argument is from the clash(es) of the round, the better the weighing needs to be to convince me to vote on it.
• Extend defense into rebuttals, esp as LOR, this shows foresight and is impressive. In rebuttals, collapse A LOT and weigh. Collapsing to just one argument in dense rounds is really impressive
• Every constructive argument needs a warrant (why) AND a mechanism (how). I will vote on untrue arguments, if proven. The more untrue/unintuitive an argument the more you need to prove it. It’s not my job to point out missed burdens, so I will heavily reward debaters who do so. If I have to intervene I’ll credit the impact you prove, not the impact you claim.
• Impacts are important. Don’t just tell me the result/implication of your argument, be SPECIFIC and COMPARATIVE
• Theory arguments still need to be proven (punishments must be proportional to violations). I like a good theory debate – this applies to p much any theory that isn’t disgustingly frivolous.
• Countercases must be mutually exclusive AND equal fiat to the gov case. I will intervene and adjudicate these myself, unless they become a clash in the round, in which case, I’ll evaluate it on the flow.
• Fine with speed but not LD spreading, I'll yell clear or slow. If your opponent isn't okay with speed then I'm not either
• I heavily sniff test PMR
• Call the POO, I don't protect the flow. I'll usually give a lean (cross applications are rarely new and I'm liberal with what's considered weighing)

Congress: (I did this event for too long so there's a lot of thoughts)

"Is he a flow judge?????"

Very broadly, Congress is a debate event with aspects of speech, not a speech event with aspects of debate. I generally prioritize argumentation, strategy, etc. over style or speaking quality. That being said, both flow and lay are important, do your best to not sacrifice either. I‘d say there's a bar for how good your lay and speaking are before I start caring about you content. This typically means not being monotone, having a level of confidence, professionalism, minimal fluency errors, not being aggressive/condescending, etc. From this point, I don't really care about lay unless you have mind-boggling rhetoric, incredible vocal inflections, or something like that, and will pretty much only care about the quality of your arguments + how you interact with the round. This being said, please don't just ignore all lay or I'll get super bored. I still really enjoy quality rhetoric and appealing deliveries.

How I evaluate arguments

I try to avoid intervention as much as possible but given that each person only gets one speech on a bill and isn't guaranteed a questioning block, I do have to do some intervening. Based on this philosophy there are a few key things to note:

1) I don't want to do any extra work for the debate. Please terminalize impacts, have ultra-clear links and warrants, and don't assume that I'm going to make any logical leaps for your argument to work that you aren't explicitly laying out for me. If an argument is missing some of these pieces I evaluate it as its weakest possible state.

2) If you make a really bad argument, even if no one addresses it, it's hard for me to give you a high rank. Ideally, every argument interacts with the stock or some key issue/impact in the round so there is no argument that is completely unresponded to, if you make a unique argument, still have it tied into the core issues. If rounds operate this way I can be less interventionist which I like and you should too. Arguments that are completely left-field in the pursuit of being 'unique' aren't important to the round and are probably not going to rank high for me.

3) Offense wins rounds, defense is just to knock down the other side's offense so yours is comparatively better. Have some offensive material in our speech, whether it's weighing, a unique argument, an impact extension, etc. If your speech is only refutation it's missing something super important and it's almost impossible for you to get my 1.

4) If your argument doesn't have uniqueness on some level (impacts that are distinct from the status quo), I'm not going to evaluate it. Debate is a comparative activity so not only do you have to compare your impacts to the other side, you have to compare how the world in which the bill is passed is distinctly different from the status quo.

Roles of Speakers

Every speech needs to add something to the round, if it doesn't you're not ranking well. However, different speeches are meant to add different things, if you're acting outside your speeches role it'll, again, be hard for you to rank high.

1) Sponsorships: This isn't any aff constructive. Set the stage for the debate and explain to the judges how everything works and give them necessary status quo information. A lot of the judges probably didn't debate Saudi Arms Sales 50 times so make sure everyone can understand what's going on. Solvency is super important. Explain why the legislation improves the squo you outlined on a very specific level. Give impacts that aren't super specific but not too broad that I can't evaluate them either. It should be pretty obvious what the important impacts in the round will be when I read a bill and I should hear them set up in your sponsor.

2) Early Round: Every speech after the sponsor needs some refutation/weighing but it's still not your primary purpose. Build up the stock and if it's already been said give some nuance, maybe new warrants, front lining solvency, stronger impacts, etc. Your goal, like every speech, is to advance your side's advocacy, but at this point, in a constructive way. If you want to be unique take a niche, but relevant, issue and tie it into the key impacts of the round. Stock is your friend, rehash is not. Engage with the stock without rehashing.

3) Mid-Round: Start breaking down and simplifying the round more. You're obviously going to have much more argument interaction so pick the most important arguments to interact with and make it clear why you're picking those. You still do need some constructive material, though. These speeches have the least guidelines and are most subject to what the round needs because there's not a definitive split for when the beginning/middle/end is. I typically want to start seeing overviews at this point in the round (a line or two about what specifically your speech is going to achieve and add to the round) or something that achieves the same purpose.

4) Late Round: These speeches are the highest risk and highest reward. The best late round speeches are some of the best speeches ever and the worst can be completely forgettable. Constructive material can still work if it is inherently engaging with other arguments, like offensive responses or turns (Rohit Jhawar's second speech in TOC Finals 2020 is a perfect example). Since there's so much to work with I need you to collapse on what's important and why -- write my ballot for me in this speech. I don't need a standard 2 question crystal, any format works as long as you clearly signpost the organization of the speech and achieve the same things content-wise. Don't touch every argument, only important ones. Please weigh.

The Solvency Clash:

As you get later in the round and the stock is still the biggest issue, there are certain arguments you HAVE to address in order to gain access to your impacts. If you are a late speaker, this is your number one job -- explaining why the obstacles to your argument the other side pointed out are not winning. If you don't do this, it'll be really hard to get on my ballot.

POs:

If you get my 1 consider it the biggest compliment in the world, I'm anti-POs winning but also anti-good POs not breaking. Great POs for me get between 2-4, okay is 5-6, and bad is 7-9. Your job isn't just to pick the right speakers and questioners but to also lead the chamber when things go off the rails. If there's an uneven amount of speeches on each side and someone calls for a recess to figure out who's flipping, you need to be leading the discussion. You're a facilitator AND leader.

Miscellaneous

1) I'm fine with debate jargon, but I'll boost people who can explain complex debate jargon concepts with normal people words.

2) Kendrick was my #1 artist on Spotify Wrapped, if you make a Kendrick reference I'll bump you up one rank.

3) I love it if you can do a unique speech structure, only if it makes sense for the round. If you can pull it off well, it goes a long way.

4) I like people who have the initiative to flip, but this isn't a free pass to give a bad speech just because you didn't have that much time.That being said, I'm probably going to mark you down more if you stay on your side out of fear that you might screw up a flipped speech if you have had a lot of time to flip.

5) If you go entirely thru ur grace period and get cut off i will be veeeeeery upset

This is my 40th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as my background in debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately edit their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue being critiqued must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick. I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. Smart debate with intelligent wit/humor might just get you a 30. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 2/22/25

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along.

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, you get some leeway in extensions in Summary, but not to dump a bunch of new stuff in 2nd Summary.

Summary should probably be line-by-line and thus I recommend ditching some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't at least on the flow in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - I like defense.

I have a Policy background but believe that is a different event - if you want to have a Policy round, please do Policy, the speeches are longer for a reason. I am planning to flow this PF round on two sheets of paper. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD.I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times. As in Policy, I like Ks that have real links, but aff must defend the resolution.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

Policy

I almost never judge circuit Policy rounds at this point. I am a little old school in that I still think you should go slower on tags than on card text and would like you to explain your arguments in your overviews (but after the 1AC/1NC) - I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.

- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.

- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.

- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.

- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.

- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.

- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.

• I'm looking for arguments backed up by solid evidence
• Ensure your comments are additive (not repetitive) and with impact
• I encourage clash and strong refutation of competitors' key points
• I also evaluate articulation and overall delivery in your communication
• I'm ok with a spirited time of questioning (appreciate strong self-advocacy), but be respectful
• Basically, I'm looking for:
• Strong arguments
• Refutations (include data from credible sources)
• Questioning
• Advancing debate
• Consistent delivery

In general, speak at a moderate speed and be considerate of your teammates, opponents, and judges. Refrain from hyperbole. Please be clear, concise, and organized—connect the dots for me.

I am not a technical judge. I will flow the best I can and evaluate your arguments, but I am not comfortable with progressive rounds. Keep the round traditional (no tricks) or risk losing my ballot. There is no need to speed read. Please do things to make your speech easier to follow. Slow down and emphasize taglines. Signpost and Roadmap off-time for clarity.

Debate and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I have no reason to vote for it. I do not intervene so debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Be clear about what I am weighing and what I should value most highly. Impacts should be realistic. Not every action could or will cause a nuclear war. Your argument should be clear and plausible. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

It is important to show respect to your competitors and approach every speech as an opportunity to teach and learn.

dmoran@pennsburysd.org

Standard, traditional judge, with experience across all events.

Appreciate clash, weighting, and topicality. Structure of your argument should be explicit ("this, therefore that"). I avoid making any connections on my own. Think about it this way--do you really want the judge having to define your argument for you?

Ks: I don't like them. I accept that they're here to stay and can tolerate them in LD (in good faith), but will be skeptical. I do not consider your opponent to have an obligation to treat the K as valid. Ks have no place in PF. Same goes for other nontraditional strategies and theory battles.

Speed is not an issue. I can keep up. If you're somehow going too fast, I may notify you to slow down, or even stop notetaking entirely, but this is rare. If you plan on spreading you better have explicit signposting.

I will not buy wide leaps in logic and do not appreciate attempts to overwhelm opponents with unwieldly links. "This, therefore this, therefore this, therefore this" is not good faith debating and is often nontopical. If you're being especially egregious I may knock you on topicality even if your opponent does not

Full disclosure: I consider all of forensics to be primarily about public speaking but will not be won over by rhetoric, volume, or flowery imagery. Vocal skills matter but that alone will never win the round.

Hold each other accountable, especially on timing. If a speaker goes way over time, that is the opponent's fault for not stopping them.

No nuclear war impacts please unless the topic is military policy.

My name is Ms. Reyes, I work at Bronx Science and I am first-time traditional judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and do not run any progressive arguments. I appreciate it when debaters are kind to each other. Have a good round!

Please don't spread.

For Presiding Officers, I consider in the top half of rankings, provided they are seamlessly running an efficient chamber. I lower ranking based on blatant errors that run counter to the momentum of the session.

My name is Joe Rogers and was an Extemporaneous speaker at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. I have judged PF and LD for 10 years. As a judge, I am looking for consistent arguments that carry throughout the debate, a central theme, appropriate clash, and civil discourse.

Your arguments should be clear and concise, and you should address your opponent's points as well.

Hi all!

For Congressional Debate:

Make sure your claims are clear, and you link then warrant them with credible and reliable evidence. Also, Congress is a debate event so make sure you mention previous speakers after the first affirmative speech, refutation is more valued than rehash. Adapt to the round in terms of speaking, if you are in the first few cycles give constructive arguments for your respective side, and if you are towards the end of the round make sure you weigh/crystallize BOTH sides of the debate and make your stance clear.

In terms of speaking, make sure your argument makes sense and has a flow, I value clarity of tone over speed. Most of all, you are playing the role of legislators, so I expect you all to be decorous and kind to one another.

This is my first year judging.  Please be clear, concise, and organized when presenting. Please speak loudly and clear so that I can understand you. Since I am new, I prefer that you do not speed read (spreading) as I do not want to miss any key points or arguments that you are trying to make. I prefer that you speak at a moderate pace and be respectful and considerate of your teammates, opponents, and judges. 

I will do the best I can to evaluate your arguments fairly. When presenting during a debate, remember that your arguments must be persuasive whether you are affirmative or negative. If I am not persuaded by the argument you are presenting, I have no reason to vote for it. In your closing rebuttal, make sure you provide a concise, detailed, and clear explanation of why your argument should win. 

It is important to show respect to your competitor and approach every speech as an opportunity to learn from each other and grow as a debater.

Hi - first time judge here. I will be very lay and focus on your presentation, though I will flow. Please signpost and don’t use jargon without explaining. Please don’t spread.